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:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 07:41:12 -0600
From:   ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the bpf-next tree

Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> writes:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
>   kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   91b2db27d3ff ("bpf: Simplify task_file_seq_get_next()")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
>   edc52f17257a ("bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use task_lookup_next_fd_rcu")
>
> from the userns tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think, 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.

Thanks.  Reading through the diff that looks right, and it has been already
reported.

Eric

Powered by blists - more mailing lists