linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree
Hi Al,
Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c
between commit:
6ab405114b0b ("netfilter: xt_bpf: add overflow checks")
from the netfilter tree and commit:
af58d2496b49 ("fix "netfilter: xt_bpf: Fix XT_BPF_MODE_FD_PINNED mode of
'xt_bpf_info_v1'"")
from the vfs tree.
I can't tell if the strlen test from the former is still needed, so I
just used the vfs tree version for now.
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.
Al, can I convince you to submit fixes to the appropriate maintainers
(or have you done so and it just hasn't been picked up yet)?
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 6ab405114b0b ("netfilter: xt_bpf: add overflow checks")
>
> from the netfilter tree and commit:
>
> af58d2496b49 ("fix "netfilter: xt_bpf: Fix XT_BPF_MODE_FD_PINNED mode of
> 'xt_bpf_info_v1'"")
>
> from the vfs tree.
>
> I can't tell if the strlen test from the former is still needed, so I
> just used the vfs tree version for now.
Yeah, both of the checks from the netfilter tree are still necessary
independent of the commit from the vfs tree.
> I fixed it up (see below)
Did you mean to paste in the fixed-up patch below this message?
> 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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree
Hi Jann, On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 01:48:14 +0100 Jann Horn wrote: > > > I can't tell if the strlen test from the former is still needed, so I > > just used the vfs tree version for now. > > Yeah, both of the checks from the netfilter tree are still necessary > independent of the commit from the vfs tree. Rats. I will see what I can do about that. > > I fixed it up (see below) > > Did you mean to paste in the fixed-up patch below this message? Ah, well actually the diff ended up empty (since I used one side of the conflicting part). -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
