linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191220102354.1b1cb3fd@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:23:54 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Chaignon <paul.chaignon@...nge.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the net tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:

  arch/riscv/net/bpf_jit_comp.c

between commit:

  96bc4432f5ad ("bpf, riscv: Limit to 33 tail calls")

from the net tree and commit:

  29d92edd9ee8 ("riscv, bpf: Add support for far branching when emitting tail call")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the bpf-next 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped