linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest 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, 5 Aug 2020 15:45:11 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Cc:     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 seccomp tree with the kselftest
 tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:59:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4c6614dc86ad ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
> 
> from the kselftest tree and commit:
> 
>   11eb004ef7ea ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
> 
> from the seccomp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter 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.

This is now a conflict between the kselftest tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped