linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the mips 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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:10:04 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the mips tree

Hi Eric,

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

  arch/mips/kernel/traps.c

between commit:

  260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from force_fcr31_sig().")

from the mips tree and commit:

  ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE")

from the userns 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