linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:26:55 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
        "linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: replace FAULT_FLAG_SIZE with parameter to huge_fault

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com> wrote:
> On 02/03/2017 03:56 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> [auto build test ERROR on mmotm/master]
>> [cannot apply to linus/master linux/master v4.10-rc6 next-20170203]
>> [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system]
>
> This one is a bit odd. I just pulled mmotm tree master branch and built
> with the attached .config and it passed for me (and I don't see this
> commit in the master branch). I also built linux-next with this patch on
> top and it also passes with attached .config. Looking at the err log
> below it seems the code has a mix of partial from before and after the
> patch. I'm rather confused about it....

This is a false positive. It tried to build it against latest mainline
instead of linux-next.