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: <20161212101311.272ed674@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:13:10 +1100
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/copy_up.c

between commit:

  4a756233184d ("Revert "ovl: Warn on copy up if a process has a R/O fd open to the lower file"")

from the overlayfs tree and commit:

  450630975da9 ("don't open-code file_inode()")

from the vfs 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell