linux-kernel - 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160511092049.4d61264d@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 11 May 2016 09:20:49 +1000
From:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al,

Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/overlayfs/super.c

between commit:

  420598d5bf9c ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup")

from the overlayfs tree and commit:

  b9e1d435fdf4 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()")

from the vfs tree.

I fixed it up (I abitrarily chose the overlayfs version (using
lookup_hash() instead of lookup_one_len_unlocked())) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell