linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the kbuild 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220523162307.45dycvqld7maaj7l@treble>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 09:23:07 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the kbuild tree

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 03:47:58PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 14:24:31 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   scripts/Makefile.build
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   0212301af7bb ("kbuild: do not create *.prelink.o for Clang LTO or IBT")
> > 
> > from the kbuild tree and commit:
> > 
> >   753da4179d08 ("objtool: Remove --lto and --vmlinux in favor of --link")
> > 
> > from the tip tree.
> > 
> > I am not sure if I fixed this up correctly, please check the final result
> > when linux-next is released.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used the former version) 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.
> 
> That produced may warnings :-(   so I tried the below resolution instead.

Looks good to me.  I guess the confusing bit was that in most cases,
CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION has been replaced with CONFIG_OBJTOOL.

-- 
Josh