linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180115091725.07d517a1@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:17:25 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the f2fs tree with the fscrypt tree

Hi Jaegeuk,

Today's linux-next merge of the f2fs tree got a conflict in:

  fs/f2fs/namei.c

between commit:

  393c038f5c55 ("f2fs: switch to fscrypt ->symlink() helper functions")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  acbf054d537d ("f2fs: inject fault to kzalloc")

from the f2fs tree.

I fixed it up (I just dropped the change to this file from the latter
commit) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell