Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
between commit:
e9d1d2bb75b2 ("treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with cc_platform_has()")
from the tip tree and commit:
cf90c4532b92 ("x86/hyperv: Add new hvcall guest address host visibility support")
from the hyperv 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.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
diff --cc arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
index 527957586f3c,525f682ab150..000000000000
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
@@@ -2024,6 -2025,17 +2026,17 @@@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(uns
return ret;
}
+ static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
+ {
+ if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
+ return hv_set_mem_host_visibility(addr, numpages, !enc);
+
- if (mem_encrypt_active())
++ if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT))
+ return __set_memory_enc_pgtable(addr, numpages, enc);
+
+ return 0;
+ }
+
int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
{
return __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:22:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
>
> between commit:
>
> e9d1d2bb75b2 ("treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with cc_platform_has()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> cf90c4532b92 ("x86/hyperv: Add new hvcall guest address host visibility support")
>
> from the hyperv 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> index 527957586f3c,525f682ab150..000000000000
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> @@@ -2024,6 -2025,17 +2026,17 @@@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(uns
> return ret;
> }
>
> + static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
> + {
> + if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
> + return hv_set_mem_host_visibility(addr, numpages, !enc);
> +
> - if (mem_encrypt_active())
> ++ if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> + return __set_memory_enc_pgtable(addr, numpages, enc);
> +
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> {
> return __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);
Looks good, thanks.
Wei, you could mention this conflict when sending to Linus or you can
simply merge into your branch the tip branch tip:x86/cc which has the
cc_platform_has() changes and then redo the isolation VM stuff ontop.
HTH.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 05:22:51PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the hyperv tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e9d1d2bb75b2 ("treewide: Replace the use of mem_encrypt_active() with cc_platform_has()")
> >
> > from the tip tree and commit:
> >
> > cf90c4532b92 ("x86/hyperv: Add new hvcall guest address host visibility support")
> >
> > from the hyperv 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.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> > index 527957586f3c,525f682ab150..000000000000
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c
> > @@@ -2024,6 -2025,17 +2026,17 @@@ static int __set_memory_enc_pgtable(uns
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > + static int __set_memory_enc_dec(unsigned long addr, int numpages, bool enc)
> > + {
> > + if (hv_is_isolation_supported())
> > + return hv_set_mem_host_visibility(addr, numpages, !enc);
> > +
> > - if (mem_encrypt_active())
> > ++ if (cc_platform_has(CC_ATTR_MEM_ENCRYPT))
> > + return __set_memory_enc_pgtable(addr, numpages, enc);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > int set_memory_encrypted(unsigned long addr, int numpages)
> > {
> > return __set_memory_enc_dec(addr, numpages, true);
>
> Looks good, thanks.
>
> Wei, you could mention this conflict when sending to Linus or you can
> simply merge into your branch the tip branch tip:x86/cc which has the
> cc_platform_has() changes and then redo the isolation VM stuff ontop.
>
Boris and Stephen, thanks for the heads-up.
Wei.
> HTH.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imend?rffer, HRB 36809, AG N?rnberg