linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the vfs 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4h2iWKn-QWXp-RdizX2NNT9uxM5ko2tYSNs-XA7ZPmw9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 07:31:18 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nvdimm tree with the vfs tree

[ add Ingo ]

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:10 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:45 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nvdimm tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >   lib/iov_iter.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> >   e33ea6e5ba6a ("x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess speculation")
> >
> > from the vfs tree and commit:
> >
> >   0a78de3d4b7b ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
> >
> > from the nvdimm tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I just used the latter, but I suspect that more work is
> > needed) 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.
>
> I messed up, this shouldn't be present in -next, yet. Will remove.

Oh, wait, this isn't from a new push this was back from the v5.9 merge
attempt and is only just now causing conflicts. Ingo, how does tip.git
usually coordinate with vfs.git? Should I rebase on vfs / work the
copy_mc_to_{user,kernel} patches through Al, or?