linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block 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: <CAGXu5j+okG+N+xy=9u9rx8FZudO+dM9dsZgq-Ey_Nr51vqWLVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 07:37:56 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        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>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block tree

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> On 11/01/2017 12:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>   drivers/block/amiflop.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>   f37ecbfc238b ("amifloppy: Convert timers to use timer_setup()")
>>
>> from the block tree and commit:
>>
>>   3c557df67257 ("timer: Remove meaningless .data/.function assignments")
>>
>> from the tip tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the former version of the motor_on_callback
>> definition) 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.
>
> Kees, why are we in this situation? Making similar timer fixups in the
> same driver and submitting it through two different trees is a mess.

It's a large conversion with a lot of moving parts and about 1100
callsites. I've tried to minimize conflicts, but without being able to
carry everything in a single tree, it's made things extremely complex.
I'm doing my best to avoid these glitches, but I haven't been 100%
successful. This is mainly the fault of the conversion uncovering more
and more corner cases as I went. :(

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security