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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CABVgOSkhSb1oVo90h8vOALZzJFCE-1GaiADFEEpXEYqrvHTS=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 16:57:58 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        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 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.

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.

-- David

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4003 bytes)