netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-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]

Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:41:38 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the bpf tree

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:37 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   f6be4d16039b ("selftests/bpf: make sure signal interrupts BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")

Ouch. Thanks for the heads up.

Daniel,
should we drop this one from bpf tree ?
I don't think it's strictly necessary.

> from the bpf tree and commits:
>
>   bf0f0fd93945 ("selftests/bpf: add simple BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN examples for flow dissector")
>   ab963beb9f5d ("selftests/bpf: add bpf_spin_lock C test")
>   ba72a7b4badb ("selftests/bpf: test for BPF_F_LOCK")
>