linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170125160835.1b94db55@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:08:35 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns
 tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/proc/base.c

between commit:

  68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces")

from the userns tree and commit:

  d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpable and writeable files")

from the akpm-current tree.

I *think* that the former supercedes the latter?

I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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