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]
Date:   Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:25:02 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

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

  include/linux/skbuff.h

between commit:

  8b7008620b84 ("net: Don't copy pfmemalloc flag in __copy_skb_header()")

from the net tree and commits:

  784abe24c903 ("net: Add decrypted field to skb")
  a48d189ef531 ("net: Move skb decrypted field, avoid explicity copy")

from the net-next tree.

The conflict only occurs because a48d189ef531 didn't put the comment
back on the __unused field that was there before 784abe24c903.

I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists