Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-x86 tree with the kvm-fixes tree

From: Sean Christopherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:58:08 -0700

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 3/12/26 18:21, Mark Brown wrote:
> > diff --cc arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > index e6477affac9a0,3407deac90bd6..0000000000000
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c
> > @@@ -4880,15 -5030,11 +5030,11 @@@ static int svm_leave_smm(struct kvm_vcp
> >    	vmcb12 = map.hva;
> >    	nested_copy_vmcb_control_to_cache(svm, &vmcb12->control);
> >    	nested_copy_vmcb_save_to_cache(svm, &vmcb12->save);
> >   -	ret = enter_svm_guest_mode(vcpu, smram64->svm_guest_vmcb_gpa, false);
> > - 	if (nested_svm_check_cached_vmcb12(vcpu) < 0)
> > - 		goto unmap_save;
> 
> The right resolution is to keep these two lines...
> 
> > -
> > - 	if (enter_svm_guest_mode(vcpu, smram64->svm_guest_vmcb_gpa,
> > - 				 vmcb12, false) != 0)
> >   -	if (ret)
> > ++	if (enter_svm_guest_mode(vcpu, smram64->svm_guest_vmcb_gpa, false) != 0)
> 
> ... while of course this part is okay.

I'm in the process of redoing kvm-x86/next on top of kvm/next, so I'll sort this
out on my end (and double check that I come up with the same resolution as Paolo).