netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net 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: <c473ffea-49c3-1c9c-b35c-cd3978369d0f@tessares.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:51:16 +0200
From: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
 David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Mat Martineau <martineau@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the net-next tree with the net tree

Hi Stephen,

On 14/06/2023 03:17, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/net/mptcp/mptcp_join.sh
> 
> between commits:
> 
>   47867f0a7e83 ("selftests: mptcp: join: skip check if MIB counter not supported")
>   425ba803124b ("selftests: mptcp: join: support RM_ADDR for used endpoints or not")
> 
> from the net tree and commits:
> 
>   45b1a1227a7a ("mptcp: introduces more address related mibs")
>   0639fa230a21 ("selftests: mptcp: add explicit check for new mibs")
> 
> from the net-next tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I think - 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.

Thank you for the conflicts resolution. If I'm not mistaken, it looks
good except the last chunk where the new call to chk_rm_tx_nr() should
go inside the 'if' statement. So instead of this bit you have on your side:

> @@@ -2394,12 -2290,8 +2399,13 @@@ remove_tests(
>   		pm_nl_add_endpoint $ns2 10.0.4.2 flags subflow
>   		run_tests $ns1 $ns2 10.0.1.1 0 -8 -8 slow
>   		chk_join_nr 3 3 3
> + 		chk_rm_tx_nr 0
>  -		chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult
>  +
>  +		if mptcp_lib_kversion_ge 5.18; then
>  +			chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult
>  +		else
>  +			chk_rm_nr 3 3
>  +		fi
>   	fi
>   
>   	# addresses flush

We should have:

> @@@ -2394,12 -2290,8 +2399,13 @@@ remove_tests(
>   		pm_nl_add_endpoint $ns2 10.0.4.2 flags subflow
>   		run_tests $ns1 $ns2 10.0.1.1 0 -8 -8 slow
>   		chk_join_nr 3 3 3
>  -		chk_rm_tx_nr 0
>  -		chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult
>  +
>  +		if mptcp_lib_kversion_ge 5.18; then
> ++			chk_rm_tx_nr 0
>  +			chk_rm_nr 0 3 simult
>  +		else
>  +			chk_rm_nr 3 3
>  +		fi
>   	fi
>   
>   	# addresses flush

("chk_rm_tx_nr 0" needs to be inside the 'if')


I added a note about the conflicts on the cover-letter:


https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230609-upstream-net-20230610-mptcp-selftests-support-old-kernels-part-3-v1-0-2896fe2ee8a3@tessares.net/

Maybe it was not a good place? I didn't know where to put it as there
were multiple patches that were conflicting with each others even if the
major conflicts were between 47867f0a7e83 ("selftests: mptcp: join: skip
check if MIB counter not supported") and 0639fa230a21 ("selftests:
mptcp: add explicit check for new mibs"). I guess next time I should add
a comment referring to the cover-letter in the patches creating conflicts.

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net