linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the staging.current 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: <20190408111439.000049bc@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 11:14:39 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
        "Linux Next Mailing List" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the staging tree with the
 staging.current tree

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:01:21 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:14:58AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:02:12 +1000
> > Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the staging tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >   drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >   20ea39ef9f2f ("iio: Fix scan mask selection")
> > > 
> > > from the staging.current tree and commit:
> > > 
> > >   3862828a903d ("iio: buffer: Switch to bitmap_zalloc()")
> > > 
> > > from the staging tree.
> > > 
> > > I fixed it up (I just used the staging tree version) 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.
> > >   
> > Thanks Stephen,
> > 
> > That is the correct resolution.  
> 
> I think it still misses the following fix:
> 
Hi Andy,

Is that actually a problem given it's copied over from buffer->scan_mask just after allocation?
The two masks are the same length so I don't think we have a problem with this one.
Am I missing something?

Jonathan


> diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> index 3c7e7380d1c3..9c2d0c97ed24 100644
> --- a/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
> @@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ static int iio_scan_mask_set(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>  	const unsigned long *mask;
>  	unsigned long *trialmask;
>  
> -	trialmask = bitmap_alloc(indio_dev->masklength, GFP_KERNEL);
> +	trialmask = bitmap_zalloc(indio_dev->masklength, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (trialmask == NULL)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	if (!indio_dev->masklength) {
> 
>