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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:56:19 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.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

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * 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.

Ah! Gotcha, okay. I had it backwards. Thanks for checking!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security