linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the kbuild 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 1 Jul 2020 07:52:14 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the rcu tree with the kbuild tree

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 03:34, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the rcu tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/kcsan/Makefile
>
> between commit:
>
>   f7c28e224da6 ("kbuild: remove cc-option test of -fno-stack-protector")

Is it possible that this patch drops the KCSAN portion? The patch
"kcsan: Simplify compiler flags" does the same, but is part of a
future pull request intended for 5.9.

The KCSAN changes had been in -next for well over a week. Also, I'm
sorry I hadn't seen your patch before, otherwise I would have noticed
this.

Please see: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200624190236.GA6603@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72

> from the kbuild tree and commits:
>
>   2839a232071f ("kcsan: Simplify compiler flags")
>   61d56d7aa5ec ("kcsan: Disable branch tracing in core runtime")
>
> from the rcu tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just used the rcu 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.

Thank you!

Thanks,
-- Marco