linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 01:46:24 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
        Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the gfs2 tree with the vfs tree

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:12:31AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the gfs2 tree got conflicts in:
> 
>   Documentation/filesystems/porting.rst
>   include/linux/uio.h
>   lib/iov_iter.c
> 
> between various commits from the vfs tree and the same, older version,
> of the commits from the gfs2 tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree versions) 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.

IMO iov_iter_fault_in_writeable() is a bloody bad idea to start with...