netdev - linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180125174123.55443421@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 17:41:23 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the vfs tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:

  net/tipc/socket.c

between commit:

  ade994f4f6c8 ("net: annotate ->poll() instances")

from the vfs tree and commit:

  60c253069632 ("tipc: fix race between poll() and setsockopt()")

from the net-next tree.

I fixed it up (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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc net/tipc/socket.c
index 2aa46e8cd8fe,473a096b6fba..000000000000
--- a/net/tipc/socket.c
+++ b/net/tipc/socket.c
@@@ -715,8 -716,7 +716,7 @@@ static __poll_t tipc_poll(struct file *
  {
  	struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
  	struct tipc_sock *tsk = tipc_sk(sk);
- 	struct tipc_group *grp = tsk->group;
 -	u32 revents = 0;
 +	__poll_t revents = 0;
  
  	sock_poll_wait(file, sk_sleep(sk), wait);