linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with Linus' 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>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 09:01:35 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ronnie Sahlberg <lsahlber@...hat.com>,
        Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@...e.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the cifs tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  fs/cifs/transport.c

between commit:

  6da2ec56059c ("treewide: kmalloc() -> kmalloc_array()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  1560d69e21c6 ("cifs: push rfc1002 generation down the stack")

from the cifs tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code modified by the former) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped