linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 01:30:28 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/overlayfs/super.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup")
> 
> from the overlayfs tree and commit:
> 
>   b3ac9a85b31c ("qstr: constify instances in overlayfs")
> 
> from the vfs 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.

FWIW, if Miklos could pick that one-liner into overlayfs tree, I'd be only
happy to drop it from that queue.