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]

Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:20:32 -0800
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor
 tree

On 12/12/22 10:03, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 12/12/22 10:52, Shuah Khan wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 12/8/22 13:10, John Johansen wrote:
>>> On 12/7/22 18:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>>
>>>>    security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
>>>>
>>>> between commits:
>>>>
>>>>    371e50a0b19f ("apparmor: make unpack_array return a trianary value")
>>>>    73c7e91c8bc9 ("apparmor: Remove unnecessary size check when unpacking trans_table")
>>>>    217af7e2f4de ("apparmor: refactor profile rules and attachments")
>>>> (and probably others)
>>>>
>>>> from the apparmor tree and commit:
>>>>
>>>>    2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
>>>>
>>>> from the kunit-next tree.
>>>>
>>>> This is somewhat of a mess ... pity there is not a shared branch (or
>>>> better routing if the patches).
>>>>
>>> sorry, there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding, probably all on me, I
>>> thought the kunit stuff that is conflicting here was going to merge next
>>> cycle.
>>>
>>
> 
> How about I just drop the following for now and handle this in the next cycle?

if you want, the other way to handle it is we coordinate our pull requests.
You go first. And then I will submit a little later in the week, with the
references to the merge conflict and a pointer to a branch with it resolved.
This isn't even a particularly tricky merge conflict, it just has the little
subtly around making sure the include symbols are conditional.

This doesn't affect me much as there is already another merge conflict with
the security tree that I need to deal with.

> I think it might be least confusing option. Let me know. I can just do that
> and then send pull request in a day or tow once things settle down in next.
> 
> 2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
> 

that is the other option. If you go that route I can help you do the rebase/merge
fix.

looking back at this, there wasn't anything explicit about this not going upstream
this cycle, I must have just assumed as the final version came about after rc7. So
my bad.

> thanks,
> -- Shuah