linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' 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: <20170522083214.GA1478@leverpostej>
Date:   Mon, 22 May 2017 09:32:15 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 01:27:11PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi,

> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   63a1e1c95e60 ("arm64/cpufeature: don't use mutex in bringup path")
> 
> from Linus' tree and commit:
> 
>   d54bb72551b9 ("arm64/cpufeature: Use static_branch_enable_cpuslocked()")
> 
> from the tip tree.

Just to check, is your copy of tip up-to-date?

That latter commit was in the tip smp/hotplug branch, but that branch
was reset to v4.12-rc1 a few days ago (before the first commit was sent
to Linus), specifically to avoid this conflict.

... did we miss another branch that was merged into, perhaps?

> I have no idea what the correct resolution is here, so I have just gone
> with the former for now (i.e. removed the
> static_branch_enable_cpuslocked() call).  This will probably need a
> better (or even correct :-)) fix.

The good news is that the commit in Linus' tree is the correct fix. :)

The other commit was a slightly broken prior attempt, and shouldn't be
in the tip tree any more.

> I fixed it up (see above) 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.

We tried, but evidently something went wrong. :/

Thanks,
Mark.