linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the file-locks 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170703225719.7c323d6a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2017 22:57:19 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the file-locks
 tree

Hi Jeff,

On Mon, 03 Jul 2017 06:27:27 -0400 Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net> wrote:
>
> I think this is fairly trivial conflict -- Kees is adding the
> __randomize_layout attribute here, and I'm just adding a field to each
> of these structs.

Yep, nothing too tricky here.

> The main catch is that both of these branches have a fair number of
> preparatory patches before the above changes occur, so pulling one into
> the other is not trivial.
> 
> Would it be best to just send the PRs to Linus and have him fix this up
> in the final merge?

Absolutely the right thing to do.  The reminder is mainly so you can
just mention the conflict to Linus.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell