linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] Networking

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 23:15:20 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ast@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking

On 11/15/2017 09:19 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 3:33 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>>
>> Highlights:
> 
> Lowlights:
> 
>  1) it duplicated a commit from the hrtimer tree, which had been
> cleaned up and rewritten, but then merging the second copy of the
> commit re-introduced the bad code that had been cleaned up.
> 
> I'm talking about commits
> 
>  - 7d9285e82db5:
>       perf/bpf: Extend the perf_event_read_local() interface, a.k.a.
> "bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers"
>  - 97562633bcba
>       bpf: perf event change needed for subsequent bpf helpers
> 
> where apparently there was no discussion between the groups about the
> subsequent changes.
> 
> And this must have shown up in linux-next as a conflict, but no
> mention of it from either the perf event tree or the networking tree
> merge.
> 
> Although it is of course possible that depending on merge order, the
> problem never showed up in next.

Sorry about that, it was discussed that the patch in [1] would get
routed through net-next and again cherry-picked from tracing folks
due to conflicting changes in perf event tree that were being worked
on to avoid later merge conflicts - clearly that didn't give the
desired result.

There was a subsequent discussion in [2] but not sure if cherry-picking
0d3d73aac2ff ("perf/core: Rewrite event timekeeping") into net-next
would have made it better or worse. We'll have a bpf sub-tree up and
running soon for the next development cycle that can be pulled from
by different parties when needed; potentially this could reduce such
conflicts between trees in future. Sorry for the trouble.

Thanks,
Daniel

  [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/821919/
  [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/1/53