linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the arc-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: <C2D7FE5348E1B147BCA15975FBA2307501A2520902@us01wembx1.internal.synopsys.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 17:11:33 +0000
From:   Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the
 arc-current tree

Hi Stephen,

On 5/29/19 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/arc/mm/fault.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   a8c715b4dd73 ("ARC: mm: SIGSEGV userspace trying to access kernel virtual memory")
>   ea3885229b0f ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault refactor #5: scoot no_context to end")
>   acc639eca380 ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault refactor #6: error handlers to use same pattern")
>   0c85612550a4 ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault refactor #7: fold the various error handling")
>   c5d7f7610d88 ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault refactor #8: release mmap_sem sooner")
>
> from the arc-current tree and commits:
>
>   351b6825b3a9 ("signal: Explicitly call force_sig_fault on current")
>   2e1661d26736 ("signal: Remove the task parameter from force_sig_fault")
>
> from the userns tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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.


Thx for this. Unfortunately I had to force push my for-next due to broken #7 and
#8 above. So you may have to do this once again.

-Vineet