linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt 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: <20200709130254.65d3f234@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 13:02:54 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the fscrypt tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the block tree got a conflict in:

  fs/buffer.c

between commit:

  4f74d15fe408 ("ext4: add inline encryption support")

from the fscrypt tree and commit:

  ed9b3196d2b2 ("fs: remove a weird comment in submit_bh_wbc")

from the block 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc fs/buffer.c
index dc5e05b47646,2725ebbcfdc2..000000000000
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@@ -3039,14 -3040,7 +3039,10 @@@ static int submit_bh_wbc(int op, int op
  	if (test_set_buffer_req(bh) && (op == REQ_OP_WRITE))
  		clear_buffer_write_io_error(bh);
  
- 	/*
- 	 * from here on down, it's all bio -- do the initial mapping,
- 	 * submit_bio -> generic_make_request may further map this bio around
- 	 */
  	bio = bio_alloc(GFP_NOIO, 1);
 +
 +	fscrypt_set_bio_crypt_ctx_bh(bio, bh, GFP_NOIO);
 +
  	bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = bh->b_blocknr * (bh->b_size >> 9);
  	bio_set_dev(bio, bh->b_bdev);
  	bio->bi_write_hint = write_hint;

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped