linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' 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:   Sat, 30 May 2020 12:25:58 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     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>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the arm tree with Linus' tree

On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 11:17, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:51:32AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 10:41, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:01:55AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 01:23, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> > > > <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ard,
> > > > >
> > > > > Please take a look.  Obviously, whatever the resolution is going to be
> > > > > needed when Linus opens the merge window.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for that.
> > > >
> > > > I have pushed the signed tag below to resolve it. Those changes were
> > > > already in v5.7-rc2, so I wouldn't expect this to cause more trouble.
> > > > If you prefer, you could merge v5.7-rc2 into your tree directly
> > > > instead.
> > >
> > > In light of Stephen's report of a different conflict on the 29th, I
> > > haven't pulled this.  I don't know if that's a side effect of this
> > > change having been picked up by -next or not.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough. Both conflicts are unambiguous and self explanatory so I
> > don't think it should be a problem, right?
>
> I don't know - I don't have a resolution for the first one, Stephen
> didn't provide a 3-way diff with his report, and I was expecting a
> 3-way diff from you for it rather than another pull request.
>

That was not clear to me.

> I now also don't know whether the conflict on the 28th still exists
> or not.
>

Yes it does. That conflict is with v5.7-rc2, which exists because your
tree is based on v5.7-rc1, and so a fix that arrived in the mean time
is touching some of the lines that are being removed in v5.8.

That is why I mentioned that you could preempt this by merging
v5.7-rc2 into your tree as well.

> I'm completely confused, and I'm considering dropping the original
> EFI pull request on the grounds that the merge window opens tomorrow,
> and there isn't going to be another -next before that happens, so we
> don't know what's going to happen whatever action we take.
>

The other conflict is with the EFI changes queued up for v5.8 in the
-tip tree. The pr_efi_err() function was renamed to efi_err(), which
was used in a lot of places. This is slightly annoying, but rather
straightforward to resolve.

In any case, I am happy to go along with whatever you feel is best.