linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the ipvs-next 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: <Zw9p7_31EESN64RQ@calendula>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:23:27 +0200
From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: duplicate patches in the ipvs-next tree

On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 11:57:41AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> The following commits are also in the netfilter-next tree as different
> commits (but the same patches):
> 
>   3478b99fc515 ("netfilter: nf_tables: prefer nft_trans_elem_alloc helper")
>   73e467915aab ("netfilter: nf_tables: replace deprecated strncpy with strscpy_pad")
>   0398cffb7459 ("netfilter: nf_tables: Fix percpu address space issues in nf_tables_api.c")
>   cb3d289366b0 ("netfilter: Make legacy configs user selectable")
> 
> These are commits
> 
>   08e52cccae11 ("netfilter: nf_tables: prefer nft_trans_elem_alloc helper")
>   544dded8cb63 ("netfilter: nf_tables: replace deprecated strncpy with strscpy_pad")
>   0741f5559354 ("netfilter: nf_tables: Fix percpu address space issues in nf_tables_api.c")
>   6c959fd5e173 ("netfilter: Make legacy configs user selectable")
> 
> in the netfilter-next tree.
> 
> These have already caused an unnecessary conflict due to further commits
> in the ipvs-next tree.  Maybe you could share a stable branch?

That was the result of a rebase, moving forward I will keep PR in a
separated branch until they are merged upstream to avoid this
situation.