linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/machdep: Remove duplicated include in svm.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <878qtud2p3.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 10:49:44 +1100
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Yang Li
 <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>, npiggin@...il.com, naveen@...nel.org,
 maddy@...ux.ibm.com
Cc: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Abaci Robot
 <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/machdep: Remove duplicated include in svm.c

Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> writes:
> Le 07/11/2024 à 12:29, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:
>>> The header files linux/mem_encrypt.h is included twice in svm.c,
>>> so one inclusion of each can be removed.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>> Closes: https://bugzilla.openanolis.cn/show_bug.cgi?id=11750
>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Li <yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/svm.c | 1 -
>>>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> The two includes only appear in linux-next, and they both come from
>> different trees. They are required in each tree to avoid breaking the
>> build.
>> 
>> So no one can merge this patch until the two trees are merged into mainline.
>
> But can't those two trees coordinate the patches so that the include 
> goes at the same place avoiding duplication at merge ?

Yes that would work.

Except that in this case it's too late because the commits have already
been applied to both trees for over a week - neither maintainer is going
to want to rebase for something trivial like a duplicated header.

I could apply a patch to my tree to move the include to the same line as
the commit in the DMA tree, but even that seems like overkill for a
duplicated header.

I'll try and remember to apply this once the trees are merged in
mainline. But if not the bot that detected it in the first place can
just detect it again and repost.

cheers