linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2020-07-09 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/exec.c between commit: 25cf336de51b ("exec: Remove do_execve_file") from the userns tree and commit: 538d50d50815 ("umh: fix refcount underflow in fork_usermode_blob().") from the akpm-current tree. I fixe

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2020-05-22 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/binfmt_script.c between commit: ccbb18b67323 ("exec/binfmt_script: Don't modify bprm->buf and then return -ENOEXEC") from the userns tree and commit: e20ecf0e2723 ("exec: simplify the copy_strings_kernel ca

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2020-05-12 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/binfmts.h between commit: 96ecee29b0b5 ("exec: Merge install_exec_creds into setup_new_exec") from the userns tree and commit: 4bdbcefd2bd8 ("exec: simplify the copy_strings_kernel calling convent

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2017-01-25 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Andrew, On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:43:22 -0800 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) > wrote: > > > Andrew do you see merit in Aleksa's patch that I don't? Otherwise can > > you remove it from your tree? > > I have done so. I'

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2017-01-25 Thread Andrew Morton
On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:59:23 +1300 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Stephen Rothwell writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > > > fs/proc/base.c > > > > between commit: > > > > 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better owners

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2017-01-25 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > fs/proc/base.c > > between commit: > > 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in > user namespaces") > > from the userns tree and commit: > > d15d2

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2017-01-24 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: fs/proc/base.c between commit: 68eb94f16227 ("proc: Better ownership of files for non-dumpable tasks in user namespaces") from the userns tree and commit: d15d29b5352f ("procfs: change the owner of non-dumpabl

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2016-09-30 Thread Ian Kent
On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 17:42 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, Hi Stephen, > > Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: > > include/linux/mount.h > > between commit: > > 312ddcb332c3 ("mnt: Add a per mount namespace limit on the number of > mounts") >

linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the userns tree

2016-09-30 Thread Stephen Rothwell
Hi Andrew, Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in: include/linux/mount.h between commit: 312ddcb332c3 ("mnt: Add a per mount namespace limit on the number of mounts") from the userns tree and commit: a0461d15d75c ("vfs: make is_local_mountpoint() usable by o