[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240222164112.20c5646e@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 16:41:12 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next
Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the kspp tree with the mm tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the kspp tree got conflicts in:
scripts/Makefile.lib
scripts/Makefile.ubsan
between commit:
1a75e5856b3b ("ubsan: reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer")
from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
557f8c582a9b ("ubsan: Reintroduce signed overflow sanitizer")
from the kspp tree.
So, the conflicts looked like this:
scripts/Makefile.lib:
ifeq ($(CONFIG_UBSAN),y)
_c_flags += $(if $(patsubst n%,, \
$(UBSAN_SANITIZE_$(basetarget).o)$(UBSAN_SANITIZE)y), \
$(CFLAGS_UBSAN))
_c_flags += $(if $(patsubst n%,, \
<<<<<<< HEAD
$(UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED_$(basetarget).o)$(UBSAN_SANITIZE_$(basetarget).o)$(UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED)$(UBSAN_SANITIZE)y), \
$(CFLAGS_UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED))
=======
$(UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP_$(basetarget).o)$(UBSAN_SANITIZE_$(basetarget).o)$(UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP)$(UBSAN_SANITIZE)y), \
$(CFLAGS_UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP))
>>>>>>> kspp/for-next/kspp
endif
scripts/Makefile.ubsan:
export CFLAGS_UBSAN := $(ubsan-cflags-y)
<<<<<<< HEAD
ubsan-wrap-signed-cflags-$(CONFIG_UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP) += -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
export CFLAGS_UBSAN_WRAP_SIGNED := $(ubsan-wrap-signed-cflags-y)
=======
ubsan-signed-wrap-cflags-$(CONFIG_UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP) += -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow
export CFLAGS_UBSAN_SIGNED_WRAP := $(ubsan-signed-wrap-cflags-y)
>>>>>>> kspp/for-next/kspp
I fixed it up (I just used the kspp tree version (arbitrarily)) 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists