linux-kernel - RE: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:10:18 +0000
From:   Vakul Garg <vakul.garg@....com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        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>
Subject: RE: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 2:14 PM
> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>; 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>; Vakul Garg
> <vakul.garg@....com>
> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree
> 
> On 09/18/2018 02:11 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   50c6b58a814d ("tls: fix currently broken MSG_PEEK behavior")
> >
> > from the net tree and commit:
> >
> >   c2ad647c6442 ("selftests/tls: Add test for recv(PEEK) spanning
> > across multiple records")
> >
> > from the net-next tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) 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.
> 
> The test from 50c6b58a814d supersedes the one from c2ad647c6442 so the
> recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs could be removed; latter was also not
> working correctly due to this bug.

Why remove recv_peek_large_buf_mult_recs if its correct?
Why not the newly added one which achieves the same thing?

Regards, Vakul

> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel