linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230828115916.05500911@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2023 11:59:16 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Zheng Yejian <zhengyejian1@...wei.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:

  kernel/trace/trace.c

between commit:

  eecb91b9f98d ("tracing: Fix memleak due to race between current_tracer and trace")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  9182b519b8c9 ("tracing: Remove unnecessary copying of tr->current_trace")

from the ftrace tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version - more may be
necessary?) 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped