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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:26:32 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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>,
        Pankaj Bharadiya <pankaj.laxminarayan.bharadiya@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the bpf-next tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

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

  net/bpf/test_run.c

between commit:

  c593642c8be0 ("treewide: Use sizeof_field() macro")

from Linus' tree and commits:

  b590cb5f802d ("bpf: Switch to offsetofend in BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")
  850a88cc4096 ("bpf: Expose __sk_buff wire_len/gso_segs to BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN")

from the bpf-next tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists