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: <3028a552-bd75-4ded-9211-62d10768d9ea@t-8ch.de>
Date:   Thu, 24 Aug 2023 08:27:21 +0200
From:   Thomas Weißschuh <thomas@...ch.de>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zhangjin Wu <falcon@...ylab.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the vfs-brauner
 tree

Hi everybody,

On 2023-08-24 14:10:08+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the nolibc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   148e9718e2a2 ("selftests/nolibc: add chmod_argv0 test")
> 
> from the nolibc 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.

This is fallout from the recent removal of
"selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net" from the nolibc tree.

Christian:

You mentioned before that you plan to have this series in
-next for some time. If you only submit it to Linux for 6.7 or later
then you have to, if I understand the process correctly, rebase your
-next branch on Linus' master after 6.6-rc1.
6.6-rc1 should contain the conflicting nolibc changes, so you would need
to resolve the conflict during rebasing.
The patch is intentionally made to be easy to resolve conflicts for,
just delete the line containing "CASE_TEST(chmod_net)".

Everyone:

What is your opinion on that?


Sorry for all the inconvenience this tiny series causes!
Thomas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ