linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the powerpc-objtool 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: <de806b36-2b5c-3040-22c2-129bc9b5ddd4@csgroup.eu>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2022 06:58:18 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
CC:     PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        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 tip tree with the powerpc-objtool
 tree



Le 24/11/2022 à 02:29, Stephen Rothwell a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
> 
>    tools/objtool/check.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>    efb11fdb3e1a ("objtool: Fix SEGFAULT")
> 
> from the powerpc-objtool tree and commit:
> 
>    dbcdbdfdf137 ("objtool: Rework instruction -> symbol mapping")
> 
> from the tip 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.
> 

Maybe it would be better to perform the check of insn inside the new 
insn_func() then ?

Christophe