linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the tip 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: <87d0sbpxmq.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:49:49 -0500
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
        "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>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the tip tree

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

> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"")
>> (and others from that series)
>> 
>> from the tip tree and commits:
>> 
>>   768fd9c69bb5 ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from bad_area_nosemaphore")
>>   25c102d803ea ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from mm_fault_error")
>> 
>> from the userns tree.
>> 
>> I fixed it up (I think - 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.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell
>> 
>> diff --cc arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> index c2e3e5127ebc,8d77700a7883..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>>  +/* Handle faults in the user portion of the address space */
>>  +static inline
>>  +void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>  +			unsigned long hw_error_code,
>>  +			unsigned long address)
>>  +{
>>  +	unsigned long sw_error_code;
>>  +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
>>  +	struct task_struct *tsk;
>>  +	struct mm_struct *mm;
>>  +	vm_fault_t fault, major = 0;
>>  +	unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE;
>>  +	u32 pkey;
>
> I missed removing the above line.

Yes.  At first glance with the above change it looks like you got it.

Eric