linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs 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]

Message-Id: <20150313.005247.525984466584401105.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:52:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de, ying.xue@...driver.com,
	balbi@...com, stern@...land.harvard.edu, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs tree

From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 03:56:09 +0000

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:24:26PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:15:43 +1100
>> 
>> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in
>> > net/socket.c between commits 005139a14660 ("fs: remove ki_nbytes") and
>> > e9eab93cc2dc ("fs: don't allow to complete sync iocbs through
>> > aio_complete") from the vfs tree and commit 1b784140474e ("net: Remove
>> > iocb argument from sendmsg and recvmsg") from the net-next tree.
>> > 
>> > I fixed it up (mainly using the net-next version - see below) and can
>> > carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
>> 
>> Al, how do you want to resolve this?
> 
> Hmm...  I could backmerge 1b784140474e4fc94281a49e96c67d29df0efbde into
> vfs.git#for-next, of course, but you've got quite a pile of stuff in front
> of it...  FWIW, the conflict resolution proposed by Stephen is correct;
> the question is what should go into which tree.
> 
> Actually, prereqs of the commit in question on vfs.git side are mostly
> -stable fodder; all it really needs is vfs.git#gadget and I was planning
> to send that to Linus - fixes for leaks and use-after-free in gadgetfs
> that had been there since forever, plus fixes for regression since 3.18
> (->f_op flipping that had always been fishy and outright broke when we
> started to FMODE_CAN_READ/FMODE_CAN_WRITE).  USB folks seem to be OK
> with it.  Christoph's patch isn't a regression fix, but seeing that it's
> (a) trivial and (b) ends up causing merge headache...  Maybe it would
> make sense to pull it into mainline and resolve the conflict on backmerge
> from mainline to net-next.  Linus?  I've pushed that (gadget + ki_nbytes)
> into vfs.git#for-linus-2; would you be OK with pulling that?

Push your stuff to Linus, then I'll solve all of this by merging
Linus --> net --> net-next at some point, ok?

Meanwhile Stephen's fix will carry us over until then.

THanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/