linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <202209271228.00C60FE98@keescook>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:28:13 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     broonie@...nel.org
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the arm64 tree

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 07:59:11PM +0100, broonie@...nel.org wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   b723edf3a12a2 ("arm64: alternatives: make alt_region const")
> 
> from the arm64 tree and commit:
> 
>   5f20997c194e8 ("arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes")
> 
> from the kspp 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 arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> index 64045e3ef03a9,d2c66507398d7..0000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/alternative.c
> @@@ -139,9 -133,8 +139,9 @@@ static void clean_dcache_range_nopatch(
>   	} while (cur += d_size, cur < end);
>   }
>   
> - static void __nocfi __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> - 					 bool is_module,
> - 					 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>  -static void __apply_alternatives(struct alt_region *region, bool is_module,
> ++static void __apply_alternatives(const struct alt_region *region,
> ++				 bool is_module,
> + 				 unsigned long *feature_mask)
>   {
>   	struct alt_instr *alt;
>   	__le32 *origptr, *updptr;

Thanks! Yes, this looks correct.

-- 
Kees Cook