linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the y2038 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87efd6mbe5.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:14:26 +0200
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        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 userns tree with the y2038 tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/signal.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   49c39f8464a9 ("y2038: signal: Change rt_sigtimedwait to use __kernel_timespec")
>
> from the y2038 tree and commit:
>
>   ae7795bc6187 ("signal: Distinguish between kernel_siginfo and siginfo")
>
> from the userns 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.

Thank you.

This is good to know about.

Eric