linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Some fixes for v5.11

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]

Message-ID: <20201215093140.uin7tveoa6hg3ulb@wittgenstein>
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:31:40 +0100
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Some fixes for v5.11

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 04:45:50PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:27 AM Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> >
> > /* Conflicts */
> > At the time of creating this PR no merge conflicts were reported from
> > linux-next and no merge conflict with 2c85ebc57b3e ("Linux 5.10") when
> > pulling the tag.
> 
> Really? It conflicted with your own time namespace fixes.. Was one or
> the other not in linux-next?

Oh sorry, I guess you didn't see that. The simple time namespace fixes
didn't make it into -next because I missed to merge them into my
for-next branch when I took them. I did mention it in the
time-namespace-v5.11 pull-request in the /* Testing */ section but
apparently this wasn't prominent enough.

"Please note that I missed to merge these fixes into my for-next branch and so
linux-next has not contained the commits in this pr.
I'm still sending this pr because these are fairly trivial bugfixes and have
seen vetting from multiple people. I have also now merged this tag into my
for-next branch so these commits will show up in linux-next soon. If you feel
more comfortable with this sitting in linux-next for a while please just ignore
this pr and I'll resend after rc1 has been released."

> 
> Not that the conflicts were big or bad (free_time_ns() prototype
> changed right next to timens_on_fork() prototype), I'm just surprised
> you saw no conflicts..

Hm, I did pull linux-next 20201214 and then did a pull from my tag. And
as usual I always do a test-pull based on v5.* releaste tag and they
didn't show any merge conflicts.

> 
> It may be that Stephen didn't even bother reporting them as trivial.

No, this was definitely my fault. I'll try to make sure this won't
repeat. Thanks for still pulling.

Christian