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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:22:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the mips tree

Hi all,

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:10:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from force_fcr31_sig().")
> 
> from the mips tree and commit:
> 
>   ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE")
> 
> from the userns tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (the former removed the code updated by the latter) 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.

Just a reminder that the above conflict still exists.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ