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  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:   Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:17:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
CC:     christian@...uner.io, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        greentime.hu@...ive.com, tklauser@...tanz.ch
Subject:     Re: linux-next: manual merge of the pidfd tree with the risc-v tree

On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 17:39:43 PDT (-0700), Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:58:46 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>> 
>>   arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> 
>> between commit:
>> 
>>   95ce6c73da3b ("riscv: Enable context tracking")
>>   929f6a183839 ("riscv: Add kmemleak support")
>> 
>> from the risc-v tree and commit:
>> 
>>   140c8180eb7c ("arch: remove HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS")
>> 
>> from the pidfd 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.
>> 
>> diff --cc arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> index 76a0cfad3367,f6a3a2bea3d8..000000000000
>> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig
>> @@@ -57,9 -52,6 +57,8 @@@ config RISC
>>   	select HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
>>   	select HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK
>>   	select HAVE_ASM_MODVERSIONS
>>  +	select HAVE_CONTEXT_TRACKING
>> - 	select HAVE_COPY_THREAD_TLS
>>  +	select HAVE_DEBUG_KMEMLEAK
>>   	select HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS if MMU
>>   	select HAVE_EBPF_JIT if MMU
>>   	select HAVE_FUTEX_CMPXCHG if FUTEX
>
> This is now a conflict between the risc-v tree and Linus' tree.

Thanks.  I'd just pulled in some stuff and was intending on sending a PR to
Linus tomorrow (we've got some autobuilders that run overnight that I like to
give a crack at the actual commit before I send anything).  For this one I
think the best bet is to just mention it to Linus as a conflict to be fixed --
the only other thing I can think of would be to rebase my tree, which seems
worse at this point.

LMK if anyone has a better idea, otherwise I'll send it out.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists