linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the overlayfs tree and build failure

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]

Date:   Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:38:43 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs-miklos tree with the
 overlayfs tree and build failure

Hi Amir,

On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:47:43 +0200 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> wrote:
>
> That's strange.
> overlayfs-next whose head is the for mentioned commit is based on
> v4.10-rc6 and has no duplicated patches AFAICS

The duplicate patches are between v4.10-rc1 and the vfs-miklos tree and
the overlayfs tree includes v4.10-rc1, so there is interactions there.

> Please note that my patch moves do_clone_file_range() from line 1743
> to line 2566,
> because it needs to use file_start_write(), which is defined in line 2533.
> so perhaps the conflict was not resolved correctly?

That is probably what happened, but if the vfs-miklos tree is cleaned
up, these conflicts will all go away.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell