linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the vfs-brauner 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: <aSXCB0yi_budofvA@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 06:49:43 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@...gle.com>, 
	Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Shivank Garg <shivankg@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the vfs-brauner tree

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ca3f437d9769 ("kvm: convert kvm_arch_supports_gmem_init_shared() to FD_PREPARE()")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commits:
> 
>   497b1dfbcacf ("KVM: guest_memfd: Rename "struct kvm_gmem" to "struct gmem_file"")
>   a63ca4236e67 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Use guest mem inodes instead of anonymous inodes")
>   e66438bb81c4 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Add gmem_inode.flags field instead of using i_private")
> 
> from the kvm-x86 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version as the conflict is a bit
> difficult) 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.
> 
> If somone can provide a better resolution, that would be nice.

Christian, please drop your KVM changes from and send "standalone" KVM-only patches
after the FD_{ADD,PREPARE}() infrastructure has landed.

Shoving things like that into -next just before the merge window, without having
been Cc'd to the relevant maintainers or even kvm@, without changelogs, and on a
short week for many of us, is not acceptable.