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, 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists