linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] infiniband: qplib

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1521061314.18703.123.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:01:54 -0400
From:   Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
        Devesh Sharma <devesh.sharma@...adcom.com>,
        Somnath Kotur <somnath.kotur@...adcom.com>,
        Sriharsha Basavapatna <sriharsha.basavapatna@...adcom.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
        Eddie Wai <eddie.wai@...adcom.com>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] infiniband: qplib_fp: fix pointer cast

On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 13:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Arnd sent in a two patch series and it got put into our for-next branch.
> >  But, the two patches are the *only* two remaining issues for the arm
> > builds on the kernelci system.  They would like to get this into for-rc
> > so that the build failures stop.  Are you OK with me just cherry-picking
> > them from for-next to for-rc so I can send them to you?  They'll show as
> > duplicates in the next merge window, but should drop silently.
> 
> Go ahead, assuming there are no other planned changes around them that
> would cause potential pointless merge problems..

These two patches will be fine in that regard.  They aren't in the area
where all the syzkaller bugs have been getting fixed.  But I need to
merge for-rc into for-next because of all of the syzkaller bugs being
fixed.  We are running into a situation where code updates that were
planned are in areas where syzkaller bugs have been fixed and there
would be significant merge conflicts if I didn't.  So, the plan as it
stands is: get the needed patches in for-rc, merge for-rc to for-next,
then cherry pick from for-next to for-rc just the two patches here
(since I have no idea how cherry picking to for-rc and then merging for-
rc to for-next would play out, I'm just not gonna try it).

It's a bit convoluted, but as long as I don't use my standard git
request pull macro when generating the pull request (it will pick the
wrong merge base every time whenever you've merged for-rc into for-next, 
you have to manually find the alternate merge base and use the right one
for git request pull) it comes out nicely in the end.

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)