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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 17:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geliang Tang <geliangtang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net
 tree


On Thu, 1 Oct 2020, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
>  net/mptcp/protocol.h
>
> between commit:
>
>  1a49b2c2a501 ("mptcp: Handle incoming 32-bit DATA_FIN values")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
>  5c8c1640956e ("mptcp: add mptcp_destroy_common helper")
>
> 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/mptcp/protocol.h
> index 20f04ac85409,7cfe52aeb2b8..000000000000
> --- a/net/mptcp/protocol.h
> +++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.h
> @@@ -387,7 -407,8 +407,8 @@@ void mptcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk,
>  bool mptcp_finish_join(struct sock *sk);
>  void mptcp_data_acked(struct sock *sk);
>  void mptcp_subflow_eof(struct sock *sk);
> -bool mptcp_update_rcv_data_fin(struct mptcp_sock *msk, u64 data_fin_seq);
> +bool mptcp_update_rcv_data_fin(struct mptcp_sock *msk, u64 data_fin_seq, bool use_64bit);
> + void mptcp_destroy_common(struct mptcp_sock *msk);
>

Yes, this is the appropriate conflict resolution. Thanks!


--
Mat Martineau
Intel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists