linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <67061a0e-5559-b79d-316e-228c7987dd7f@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 11:22:10 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor
 tree

On 7/5/22 01:57, David Gow wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 7:14 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:55:40 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>    d86d1652ab13 ("apparmor: test: Remove some casts which are no-longer required")
>>>
>>> from the apparmor tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    5f91bd9f1e7a ("apparmor: test: Use NULL macros")
>>>
>>> from the kunit-next 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --cc security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
>>> index 399dce3781aa,5c18d2f19862..000000000000
>>> --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
>>> +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
>>> @@@ -408,8 -408,8 +408,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u
>>>
>>>        size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>>>
>>>   -    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
>>>   +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
>>> -     KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
>>> +     KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, chunk);
>>>        KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->end - 1);
>>>    }
>>>
>>> @@@ -430,8 -430,8 +430,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_u
>>>
>>>        size = unpack_u16_chunk(puf->e, &chunk);
>>>
>>>   -    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, (size_t)0);
>>>   +    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, size, 0);
>>> -     KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, chunk, NULL);
>>> +     KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, chunk);
>>>        KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos, puf->e->start + TEST_U16_OFFSET);
>>>    }
>>>
>>
>> This is now a conflict between the apparmor tree and Linus' tree.
>>
> 
> Hmm... this patch -- d86d1652ab13 ("apparmor: test: Remove some casts
> which are no-longer required") -- has been sitting in the
> apparmor-next branch since December, but there haven't been any
> AppArmor pull requests since then.
> 
yeah sorry we had some testing infrastructure issues against the upstream kernel that
needed to be reworked, and I have been refusing to pull new stuff push a pull request
until we could get that fixed and have passing tests to ensure we weren't breaking
something, and this got caught up in that mess. That has finally happened this whole
lot that has been sitting can finally go up, and I can start merging in some of the
queued up new stuff.

> If it's easier, I'm happy to redo this and send it in via the KUnit
> tree (assuming it gets removed from apparmor-next). Otherwise, I guess
> this'll just have to wait for the next AppArmor PR.
> 
I have dropped it from apparmor-next for the moment. It can go up via KUnit or the
apparmor PR for 5.20.