linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the tip 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200611105254.1b14f070@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jun 2020 10:52:54 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     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>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got conflicts in:

  include/linux/compiler.h

between commits:

  dee081bf8f82 ("READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types")
  9e343b467c70 ("READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() memory accesses")
  a5460b5e5fb8 ("READ_ONCE: Simplify implementations of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE()")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  2ab3a0a02905 ("READ_ONCE: Enforce atomicity for {READ,WRITE}_ONCE() memory accesses")
  7b364f0949ae ("READ_ONCE: Drop pointer qualifiers when reading from scalar types")
  bbfa112b46bd ("READ_ONCE: Simplify implementations of {READ,WRITE}_ONCE()")
(and maybe others)

from the tip tree.

I fixed it up (I think - please check the final result when I release it)
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