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

Message-ID: <86zfhjnccx.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:08:30 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...columbia.edu>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	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

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
- arm64/for-next/spectre-bhb-assume-vulnerable

so that these conflicts are solved on our end?

Thanks,

	M.

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