linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the modules tree with the mm 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: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:29:46 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the modules tree with the mm tree

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 01:07:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:39:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the modules tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   kernel/module/main.c
> > 
> > between commits:
> > 
> >   7f014cdda4cb ("lib: code tagging module support")
> >   5ab9b0c7ea5c ("lib: prevent module unloading if memory is not freed")
> > 
> > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commits:
> > 
> >   0746f9982603 ("module: make module_memory_{alloc,free} more self-contained")
> >   18da532eefc8 ("mm/execmem, arch: convert remaining overrides of module_alloc to execmem")
> > 
> > from the modules 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.
> 
> That's a shame.  I don't see much that we can do to reduce the damage here.

I can rebase it on mm-unstable and this can go via the mm tree.
 
> Suren&Kent, please review (and preferably) test Stephen's handiwork in
> linux-next?
> 

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.