linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181012104744.GA105548@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:47:44 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree


* Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:14 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   184d47f0fd36 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()")
> >
> > from Linus' tree and commit:
> >
> >   1be3f247c288 ("x86/mm: Avoid VLA in pgd_alloc()")
> >
> > from the tip tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the version from Linus' tree) 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.

This is the correct resolution, thanks Stephen!

> Ingo, it looks like that commit needs to be split up again ... Linus's
> tree still needs the fix for the fix?

-next still had the old commit, I've now refreshed tip:auto-latest so the
conflict should go away in the next iteration.

Linus's tree has the correct fix.

Thanks,

	Ingo