netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf 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: <0df3cf32-9f64-b0f0-3a1c-00c1ab52c939@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:03:49 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with the bpf tree

On 02/26/2018 01:41 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the bpf-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   ca36960211eb ("bpf: allow xadd only on aligned memory")
> 
> from the bpf tree and commit:
> 
>   23d191a82c13 ("bpf: add various jit test cases")
> 
> from the bpf-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.

Looks good, thanks!