[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAG48ez1itzyi=0_N-DfjJ+LYSTjCkQR-GHNLOSTnR=oOj7nyyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:48:14 +0100
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.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 vfs tree with the netfilter tree
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, both of the checks from the netfilter tree are still necessary
independent of the commit from the vfs tree.
> I fixed it up (see below)
Did you mean to paste in the fixed-up patch below this message?
> 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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists