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]
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ