Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 10:39:52 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the hyperv tree with the tip tree
Message-ID: <20211028103952.olmn4xqnfwnjrdfc@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
References: <20211026172251.0f655709@canb.auug.org.au>
 <YXe77nC1uNKiuPch@zn.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <YXe77nC1uNKiuPch@zn.tnic>
Precedence: bulk

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