linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm-stable 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: <CAADnVQKy848BOi42kJh5dDpFsVuyktAgFds3byptANGpOkbXZw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 19:20:19 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the mm-stable tree

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 5:36 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   mm/vmalloc.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   8e1d743f2c26 ("mm: vmalloc: support multiple nodes in vmallocinfo")
>
> from the mm-stable tree and commit:
>
>   e6f798225a31 ("mm: Introduce VM_SPARSE kind and vm_area_[un]map_pages()")
>
> from the bpf-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

..

>
>  -      if (v->flags & VM_USERMAP)
>  -              seq_puts(m, " user");
>  +                      if (v->flags & VM_IOREMAP)
>  +                              seq_puts(m, " ioremap");
>
>  -      if (v->flags & VM_DMA_COHERENT)
>  -              seq_puts(m, " dma-coherent");
> ++                      if (v->flags & VM_SPARSE)
> ++                              seq_puts(m, " sparse");
> +

Indent change across the loop makes the conflict look big,
but it's actually trivial and resolution looks correct.

Thanks!