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  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:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:44:04 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <>
To:     Christian Brauner <>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <>,
        Stephen Rothwell <>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        linux-arch <>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the y2038 tree

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 1:24 PM Christian Brauner <> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:46:56PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 12:42:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >
> > > You need to change __NR_syscalls to 425 as well. This will
> > > clearly create a conflict, but then the resolution will be to pick
> > > the correct (a.k.a. highest) number, rather than remembering
> > > to update it manually.
> >
> > Hm, ok. Wasn't sure if that would confuse people.
> >
> > Ok, when I sent my PR I will make a note in the PR that this branch is
> > aligned to create only minimal conflicts with your y2038 branch. The
> > patch carries your ack already so this should be good.

My point was just that __NR_syscalls has to be one more than the highest
syscall number, otherwise we get a build failure on architectures that
create an array of __NR_syscalls entries.

> Arnd, in case you care to take a look

Looks good to me.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists