All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the kvm-fixes tree
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 06:40:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ar0RN3FICQ-PEqNW@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ar0KIZ8HQEfIRvVJ@sirena.org.uk>

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, Mark Brown wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-x86 tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_x2apic_test.c
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   b630929bcc4c8 ("KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate disabling x2APIC virt")
>   b0bc51910f039 ("KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate using eVMCS for vmcs12")
> 
> from the kvm-fixes tree and commits:
> 
>   9b2f8146fcef9 ("KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate disabling x2APIC virt")
>   a4bab1c12fd52 ("KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate using eVMCS for vmcs12")

kvm-fixes got force-pushed, which is what's causing the weird conflict.  In a
tree that hasn't refresh from kvm.git, I see:

  a4bab1c12fd528ccaafee00360e07463873404a9 (kvm/master, kvm/HEAD) KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate using eVMCS for vmcs12
  9b2f8146fcef9faa73f9dc1bad9a8d6c585cfec8 KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate disabling x2APIC virt

versus the newer version:

  973ea70393e885e540f714904e51bc6cac80e3d7 (kvm/master, kvm/HEAD) KVM: SEV: Do cache maintenance on the source VM *before* clearing SEV state
  8abbc76120a74bfba1851bd97528099d715e45c6 KVM: SEV: Nullify "have run CPUs" mask pointer when freeing it
  b0bc51910f0391fea09c0a1d32352fec2acb2686 KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate using eVMCS for vmcs12
  b630929bcc4c867c9abc8cd5a0ebee3bb5ce5dcd KVM: selftests: Extend nested x2APIC test to validate disabling x2APIC virt

Ahh, I see the difference.  Paolo fixed up the Author:

  commit 9b2f8146fcef9faa73f9dc1bad9a8d6c585cfec8
  Author:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
  AuthorDate: Sat Sep 26 02:04:03 2026 -0400
  Commit:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
  CommitDate: Sat Sep 26 02:22:15 2026 -0400

versus:

  commit b630929bcc4c867c9abc8cd5a0ebee3bb5ce5dcd
  Author:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
  AuthorDate: Sat Sep 26 02:04:03 2026 -0400
  Commit:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
  CommitDate: Mon Sep 28 17:11:47 2026 -0400

> from the kvm-x86 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.
> 
> diff --combined tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_x2apic_test.c
> index ce204ce29a9c0,2ae698c9aa1ce..0000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_x2apic_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/nested_x2apic_test.c
> @@@ -61,57 -61,55 +61,57 @@@ static void l1_vmx_code(struct vmx_page
>   		evmcs_enable();
>   	}
>   
>  -	prepare_for_vmx_operation(vmx);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(prepare_for_vmx_operation(vmx), true);

This resolution will probably break the final selftests build?  kvm-x86/next
moves these asserts into prepare_for_vmx_operation(), load_evmcs(), load_vmcs()
etc.  I.e. kvm-x86/next should "win".

Regardless, I'll rebase kvm-x86/fixes onto the new kvm/master and rebuild kvm-x86/next,
so this should go away.

>   
>   	if (hv_pages) {
>  -		load_evmcs(hv_pages);
>  +		GUEST_ASSERT(load_evmcs(hv_pages));
>   		current_evmcs->hv_enlightenments_control.msr_bitmap = 1;
>   	} else {
>  -		load_vmcs(vmx);
>  +		GUEST_ASSERT(load_vmcs(vmx));
>   	}
>   
>   	prepare_vmcs(vmx, NULL);
> - 	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(GUEST_RIP, (unsigned long)l2_guest_code), 0);
> + 	vmwrite(GUEST_RIP, (unsigned long)l2_guest_code);
>   
>  -	control = vmread(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>  +	control = vmreadz(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>   	control |= PIN_BASED_EXT_INTR_MASK;
>   	vmwrite(PIN_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
>   
>  -	control = vmread(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>  +	control = vmreadz(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>   	control |= CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS | CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW;
>  -	vmwrite(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control), 0);
>   
>  -	control = vmread(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>  +	control = vmreadz(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>   	control |= SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE |
>   		   SECONDARY_EXEC_APIC_REGISTER_VIRT |
>   		   SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUAL_INTR_DELIVERY;
>   	control &= (rdmsr(MSR_IA32_VMX_PROCBASED_CTLS2) >> 32);
>  -	vmwrite(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control), 0);
>   
>  -	vmlaunch();
>  -	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmread(VM_EXIT_REASON), EXIT_REASON_CPUID);
>  -	vmwrite(GUEST_RIP, vmread(GUEST_RIP) + vmread(VM_EXIT_INSTRUCTION_LEN));
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT(!vmlaunch());
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmreadz(VM_EXIT_REASON), EXIT_REASON_CPUID);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(GUEST_RIP,
>  +			vmreadz(GUEST_RIP) + vmreadz(VM_EXIT_INSTRUCTION_LEN)), 0);


>   }
>   
>   static void l1_vmx_code_part2(void)
>   {
>   	u64 control;
>   
>  -	control = vmread(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>  +	control = vmreadz(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>   	control &= ~CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW;
>  -	vmwrite(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(CPU_BASED_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control), 0);
>   
>  -	control = vmread(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>  +	control = vmreadz(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL);
>   	control &= ~(SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUALIZE_X2APIC_MODE |
>   			SECONDARY_EXEC_APIC_REGISTER_VIRT |
>   			SECONDARY_EXEC_VIRTUAL_INTR_DELIVERY);
>  -	vmwrite(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(SECONDARY_VM_EXEC_CONTROL, control), 0);
>   
>  -	vmresume();
>  -	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmread(VM_EXIT_REASON), EXIT_REASON_CPUID);
>  -	vmwrite(GUEST_RIP, vmread(GUEST_RIP) + vmread(VM_EXIT_INSTRUCTION_LEN));
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT(!vmresume());
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmreadz(VM_EXIT_REASON), EXIT_REASON_CPUID);
>  +	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(vmwrite(GUEST_RIP,
>  +			vmreadz(GUEST_RIP) + vmreadz(VM_EXIT_INSTRUCTION_LEN)), 0);
>   }
>   
>   static void l1_test_x2apic_intercepts(void)



  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-30 13:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-30 13:09 linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the kvm-fixes tree Mark Brown
2026-09-30 13:40 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-09-30 14:04   ` Mark Brown
2026-09-30 15:11     ` Sean Christopherson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-03-12 17:21 Mark Brown
2026-03-12 17:54 ` Paolo Bonzini
2026-03-12 17:58   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-03-12 17:58   ` Mark Brown
2024-04-03  0:53 Stephen Rothwell
2024-04-03 13:30 ` Sean Christopherson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ar0RN3FICQ-PEqNW@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.