linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the arm64 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211008170420.4044df3a@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 17:04:20 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the arm64
 tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:

  arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c
  mm/kasan/kasan.h
  mm/kasan/hw_tags.c

between commit:

  ec0288369f0c ("arm64: mte: Add asymmetric mode support")

from the arm64 tree and commit:

  7f3c6cb1e524 ("arm64: mte: add asymmetric mode support")

from the akpm-current tree.

I am assuming that the arm64 tree commit (and surrounding commits) is
a newer version of the same change in the akpm-current tree, so I have
dropped the following patches from the akpm-current tree.

2cff25205689 kasan: extend KASAN mode kernel parameter
7f3c6cb1e524 arm64: mte: add asymmetric mode support
a0449eb025b2 arm64: mte: CPU feature detection for Asymm MTE
b7b8a32980f3 arm64: mte: bitfield definitions for Asymm MTE
89a5adeb4891 kasan: remove duplicate of kasan_flag_async

I fixed it up (see above) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped