linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the aio tree with the vfs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170911112913.4b24f40f@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 11:29:13 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the aio tree with the vfs tree

Hi Benjamin,

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

  fs/aio.c

between commit:

  32ec9f249d65 ("io_getevents: Use timespec64 to represent timeouts")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  eb5263749f68 ("aio: handle integer overflow in io_getevents() timespec usage")

from the aio tree.

I fixed it up (I just dropped the change in the latter commit) 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