linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the integrity 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]

Message-Id: <1584111252.5188.16.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:54:12 -0400
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
 integrity tree

On Fri, 2020-03-13 at 21:07 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/x86/Kconfig
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   9e2b4be377f0 ("ima: add a new CONFIG for loading arch-specific policies")
> 
> from the integrity tree and commit:
> 
>   faaa52178603 ("userfaultfd: wp: add WP pagetable tracking to x86")
> 
> from the akpm-current 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.
> 
> Note that I put the selects in their correct alphabetical position as
> asked by the comment higher up in the file.  If that had been done in
> the patches, then there would have been no conflicts ...

True.  Thanks, Stephan.  Before moving it to "its proper location",
I'm wondering if there should be a separate section for "imply".

Mimi