linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] EFI changes for v5.8

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 13:38:32 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] EFI changes for v5.8

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 7:42 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Please note that Stephen reported a conflict with the ARM32 tree, due
> to the replacement of all instances of pr_efi_err() with efi_err(),
> including a couple in some ARM code that is being modified.

Ok, I'll try to remember, but I probably won't. So it would be lovely
to be reminded when I get the arm pull.

That said, if it's just outright conflicts, that's not a big deal and
the resolution looks trivial. But if there are actual semantic
conflicts that don't show up during the merge like Ingo implies, I
would indeed not notice due to me not doing any cross-builds.

                    Linus