linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd 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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:44:04 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
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 <christian@...uner.io> 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
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brauner/linux.git/log/?h=for-next

Looks good to me.

      Arnd