linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the folio tree with the xfs 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: <20210811144446.GD3601443@magnolia>
Date:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 07:44:46 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@...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 folio tree with the xfs tree

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 07:43:45AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 05:42:31PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the folio tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   mm/util.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   de2860f46362 ("mm: Add kvrealloc()")
> > 
> > from the xfs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   3bc0556bade4 ("mm: Add folio_raw_mapping()")
> > 
> > from the folio tree.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (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.
> 
> Hmmm.  Seeing as krealloc lives in mm/slab_common.c anyway, I might just
> move this function there, and (hopefully) avoid this conflict.

Never mind, didn't work.

--D

> 
> --D
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> > 
> > diff --cc mm/util.c
> > index d06e48b28eec,e8fa30e48447..000000000000
> > --- a/mm/util.c
> > +++ b/mm/util.c
> > @@@ -660,31 -635,6 +660,21 @@@ void kvfree_sensitive(const void *addr
> >   }
> >   EXPORT_SYMBOL(kvfree_sensitive);
> >   
> >  +void *kvrealloc(const void *p, size_t oldsize, size_t newsize, gfp_t flags)
> >  +{
> >  +	void *newp;
> >  +
> >  +	if (oldsize >= newsize)
> >  +		return (void *)p;
> >  +	newp = kvmalloc(newsize, flags);
> >  +	if (!newp)
> >  +		return NULL;
> >  +	memcpy(newp, p, oldsize);
> >  +	kvfree(p);
> >  +	return newp;
> >  +}
> >  +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kvrealloc);
> >  +
> > - static inline void *__page_rmapping(struct page *page)
> > - {
> > - 	unsigned long mapping;
> > - 
> > - 	mapping = (unsigned long)page->mapping;
> > - 	mapping &= ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS;
> > - 
> > - 	return (void *)mapping;
> > - }
> > - 
> >   /* Neutral page->mapping pointer to address_space or anon_vma or other */
> >   void *page_rmapping(struct page *page)
> >   {
> 
>