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: <20250317142212.GA11776@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:22:13 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-arm tree with the arm64 tree

On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 11:08:30AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:21:02 +0000,
> Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-arm tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   d2c173acbf93 ("KVM: arm64: expose SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_4 to guests")
> > 
> > from the arm64 tree and commit:
> > 
> >   c0000e58c74e ("KVM: arm64: Introduce KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_2")
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Thanks for resolving all 3 conflicts, which look good to me.
> 
> Oliver, would you consider picking the following arm64 branches:
> 
> - arm64/for-next/leaky-prefetcher

Can you hold fire on this one, please? ^^^

Catalin asked for comments on Friday and I'm not sure I'm happy with it.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/174197730164.734861.6726211221092480832.b4-ty@arm.com/

Will reply there shortly...

Will