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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:47:18 -0500 From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> Cc: Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 10:20 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in: > > security/commoncap.c > > between commit: > > 8cf0a1bc1287 ("capabilities: fix potential memleak on error path from vfs_getxattr_alloc()") > > from Linus' tree and commit: > > f6fbd8cbf3ed ("lsm,fs: fix vfs_getxattr_alloc() return type and caller error paths") > > from the security tree. > > I fixed it up (I just used the latter) and can carry the fix as > necessary. That's more or less what I've done with my builds, thanks Stephen. I asked this on a previous conflict but never received an answer so I'll ask it one more time: is there a recommended way to notify linux-next of an upcoming conflict? I generally notice the merge conflict within a few minutes of merging the patches into a -next branch, and fix it shortly afterwards. I'm happy to provide a heads-up, and a merge example, but I'm not sure what the process is for that, if any. Or, would you simply prefer to notice it yourself? I'm not bothered either way, I just thought you might appreciate the heads-up. -- paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists