linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:59:44 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree

Hi all,

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

  kernel/bpf/btf.c

between commit:

  5b801dfb7feb ("bpf: Fix NULL pointer dereference in __btf_resolve_helper_id()")

from the bpf tree and commit:

  138b9a0511c7 ("bpf: Remove btf_id helpers resolving")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (the latter removed the code fixed by the former) 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