linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <86a5c4p9fd.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 09:40:22 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: 	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List
 <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 03:53:03 +0000,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; US-ASCII (quoted-printable)>]
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
>   arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c
>   arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/pkvm.c
>   arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e5ecedcd7cc2 ("arm64/sysreg: Get rid of CPACR_ELx SysregFields")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commits:
> 
>   41d6028e28bd ("KVM: arm64: Convert the SVE guest vcpu flag to a vm flag")
>   d381e53384a6 ("KVM: arm64: Move host SME/SVE tracking flags to host data")
>   f50758260bff ("KVM: arm64: Group setting traps for protected VMs by control register")
>   2fd5b4b0e7b4 ("KVM: arm64: Calculate cptr_el2 traps on activating traps")
> (and maybe others)
> 
> from the kvm-arm tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.


Hi Stephen,

This looks OK to me, but we should fix this in the kvmarm tree.

Will: I'm going to merge the arm64/for-next/cpufeature branch back
into kvmarm/next -- shout if you foresee an issue with that.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.