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:   Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:10:35 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree

Hi Al,

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

  net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c

between commit:

  6ab405114b0b ("netfilter: xt_bpf: add overflow checks")

from the netfilter tree and commit:

  af58d2496b49 ("fix "netfilter: xt_bpf: Fix XT_BPF_MODE_FD_PINNED mode of 'xt_bpf_info_v1'"")

from the vfs tree.

I can't tell if the strlen test from the former is still needed, so I
just used the vfs tree version for now.

I fixed it up (see below) 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.

Al, can I convince you to submit fixes to the appropriate maintainers
(or have you done so and it just hasn't been picked up yet)?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Powered by blists - more mailing lists