Hi all,
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 18:24:53 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/events/core.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 78af4dc949da ("perf: Break deadlock involving exec_update_mutex")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
>
Hi all,
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:22:48 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 91b2db27d3ff ("bpf: Simplify task_file_seq_get_next()")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
> e
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
kernel/events/core.c
between commit:
78af4dc949da ("perf: Break deadlock involving exec_update_mutex")
from the tip tree and commit:
f7cfd871ae0c ("exec: Transform exec_update_mutex into a rw_semaphore")
from the us
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 91b2db27d3ff ("bpf: Simplify task_file_seq_get_next()")
>
> from the bpf-next tree and commit:
>
> edc52f17257a ("bpf/task_iter: In task_f
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
kernel/bpf/task_iter.c
between commit:
91b2db27d3ff ("bpf: Simplify task_file_seq_get_next()")
from the bpf-next tree and commit:
edc52f17257a ("bpf/task_iter: In task_file_seq_get_next use
task_lookup_next_fd_rcu")
Hi all,
On Thu, 30 May 2019 13:17:21 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arc/mm/fault.c
>
> between commits:
>
> a8c715b4dd73 ("ARC: mm: SIGSEGV userspace trying to access kernel virtual
> memory")
> ea3885229b0f ("A
Hi Vineet,
On Thu, 30 May 2019 17:11:33 + Vineet Gupta
wrote:
>
> Thx for this. Unfortunately I had to force push my for-next due to broken #7
> and
> #8 above. So you may have to do this once again.
Thanks for the heads up, but "git rerere" seems to have still coped, so
its all good.
--
Hi Stephen,
On 5/29/19 8:17 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arc/mm/fault.c
>
> between commits:
>
> a8c715b4dd73 ("ARC: mm: SIGSEGV userspace trying to access kernel virtual
> memory")
> ea3885229b0f ("ARC: mm
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/arc/mm/fault.c
between commits:
a8c715b4dd73 ("ARC: mm: SIGSEGV userspace trying to access kernel virtual
memory")
ea3885229b0f ("ARC: mm: do_page_fault refactor #5: scoot no_context to end")
acc639eca380 ("ARC
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"
Hi all,
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/x86/mm/fault.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"")
> (and others from that series)
>
> fr
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/mm/fault.c
between commit:
164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"")
(and others from that series)
from the tip tree and commits:
768fd9c69bb5 ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter f
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> kernel/signal.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 49c39f8464a9 ("y2038: signal: Change rt_sigtimedwait to use
> __kernel_timespec")
>
> from the y2038 tree and commit:
>
> ae7795bc6187 ("signal
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
kernel/signal.c
between commit:
49c39f8464a9 ("y2038: signal: Change rt_sigtimedwait to use
__kernel_timespec")
from the y2038 tree and commit:
ae7795bc6187 ("signal: Distinguish between kernel_siginfo and siginfo"
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:49:29PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> diff --cc arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> index 21689c6a985f,856b32aa03d8..
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
> @@@ -353,12 -366,6 +368,9 @@@ void force_signal_inject(int signal, in
>
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
between commit:
8a60419d3676 ("arm64: force_signal_inject: WARN if called from kernel
context")
from the arm64 tree and commit:
6fa998e83ef9 ("signal/arm64: Push siginfo generation into ar
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
between commits:
76dee4a72849 ("x86/kprobes: Inline kprobe_exceptions_notify() into
do_general_protection()")
81fd9c18444e ("x86/fault: Plumb error code and fault address through to fault
han
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:39:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
> wrote:
>
> Are there any comments on this resolution. I just had to do it all
> again due to slight changes in the vfs tree. What are you guys going
> to tell Linus when he comes to merge this?
Curre
Hi all,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:39:05 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/proc/inode.c
> fs/proc/root.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
> 83cd45075c36 ("proc: A
Hi all,
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:44:41 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/proc/internal.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
>
> from the vfs tree and commit:
>
>
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
fs/proc/inode.c
fs/proc/root.c
between commit:
0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
83cd45075c36 ("proc: Add fs_context support to procfs")
from the vfs tree and commit:
cc8cda3af2ba
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
fs/proc/internal.h
between commit:
0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
from the vfs tree and commit:
04035aa33a12 ("proc: Don't change mount options on remount failure.")
from the usern
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in:
>
> fs/proc/inode.c
> fs/proc/root.c
>
> between commits:
>
> 0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
> 83cd45075c36 ("proc: Add fs_context support to procfs")
>
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in:
fs/proc/inode.c
fs/proc/root.c
between commits:
0223e0999be2 ("procfs: Move proc_fill_super() to fs/proc/root.c")
83cd45075c36 ("proc: Add fs_context support to procfs")
from the vfs tree and commit:
cc8cda3af2ba
Hi all,
On Wed, 30 May 2018 18:30:58 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm/mm/fault.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 93a24d7e23e7 ("ARM: spectre-v2: harden user aborts in kernel space")
>
> from the arm tree and commit:
>
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm/mm/fault.c
between commit:
93a24d7e23e7 ("ARM: spectre-v2: harden user aborts in kernel space")
from the arm tree and commit:
3eb0f5193b49 ("signal: Ensure every siginfo we send has all bits initialized")
f
On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 01:29:55PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
> > 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
Mark Brown writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Yesterday's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/arm/mm/fault.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 8d9267cedb9e1d8edb8 ("ARM: spectre-v2: harden user aborts in kernel space")
>
> from the arm tree and commit:
>
> 3eb0f5193b497083391 ("signal
Hi Eric,
Yesterday's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm/mm/fault.c
between commit:
8d9267cedb9e1d8edb8 ("ARM: spectre-v2: harden user aborts in kernel space")
from the arm tree and commit:
3eb0f5193b497083391 ("signal: Ensure every siginfo we send has all bi
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
ipc/msg.c
between commit:
370c8f44ce16 ("ipc: add msgget syscall wrapper")
from the syscalls tree and commit:
50ab44b1c5d1 ("ipc: Directly call the security hook in ipc_ops.associate")
from the userns tree.
I fixe
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> fs/fuse/dev.c
>
> between commits:
>
> dbf107b2a7f3 ("fuse: Remove the buggy retranslation of pids in
> fuse_dev_do_read")
> c9582eb0ff7d ("fuse: Fail all requests with invalid uids or
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
fs/fuse/dev.c
between commits:
dbf107b2a7f3 ("fuse: Remove the buggy retranslation of pids in
fuse_dev_do_read")
c9582eb0ff7d ("fuse: Fail all requests with invalid uids or gids")
8cb08329b080 ("fuse: Support fuse f
Hi all,
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 15:10:04 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from
> force_fcr31_sig().")
>
> from the mips tr
Ralf Baechle writes:
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:10:04PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> (Maciej added to cc.)
>
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Rem
On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:10:04PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
(Maciej added to cc.)
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from
> force_fcr
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
arch/mips/kernel/traps.c
between commit:
260a789828aa ("MIPS: signal: Remove unreachable code from force_fcr31_sig().")
from the mips tree and commit:
ea1b75cf9138 ("signal/mips: Document a conflict with SI_USER wit
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
security/selinux/hooks.c
between commit:
be0554c9bf9f ("selinux: clean up cred usage and simplify")
from the selinux tree and commit:
9227dd2a84a7 ("exec: Remove LSM_UNSAFE_PTRACE_CAP")
from the userns tree.
I fix
Hi Eric,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:44:25 -0600 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
>
> > I just used the version of the userns tree from next-20161117 for today.
> > Please merge v4.9-rc2 and fix up the conflicts (or just rebase onto
> > v4.9-rc2).
>
> Will do. Thank you.
Thanks.
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c
> arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c
> arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c
> arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c
> arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c
> arch/powerpc/kernel/ptr
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in:
arch/alpha/kernel/ptrace.c
arch/blackfin/kernel/ptrace.c
arch/cris/arch-v32/kernel/ptrace.c
arch/ia64/kernel/ptrace.c
arch/mips/kernel/ptrace32.c
arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace32.c
include/linux/mm.h
kernel/ptrace.
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
include/linux/sysctl.h
between commit:
e79c6a4fc923 ("net: make net namespace sysctls belong to container's owner")
from the net-next tree and commit:
13bcc6a28534 ("sysctl: Stop implicitly passing current into
sys
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
fs/posix_acl.c
between commit:
485e71e8fb63 ("posix_acl: Add set_posix_acl")
from Linus' tree and commit:
0d4d717f2583 ("vfs: Verify acls are valid within superblock's s_user_ns.")
from the userns tree.
I fixed it
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in:
fs/proc/root.c
between commit:
e54ad7f1ee26 ("proc: prevent stacking filesystems on top")
from Linus' tree and commit:
e94591d0d90c ("proc: Convert proc_mount to use mount_ns")
from the userns tree.
I fixed it up
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c between commit 0bb549052d33 ("efi: Add esrt
support") from the tip tree and commit c2f0fd2c640e ("sysfs: Create
mountpoints with sysfs_create_mount_point") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see be
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
include/linux/fs.h between commit 89e9b9e07a39 ("writeback: add
{CONFIG|BDI_CAP|FS}_CGROUP_WRITEBACK") from the block tree and commit
1b852bceb0d1 ("mnt: Refactor the logic for mounting sysfs and proc in a
user namespace") from
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/libfs.c between commit 61ba64fc0768 ("libfs: simple_follow_link()")
from the vfs tree and commit d5044ae07353 ("fs: Add helper functions
for permanently empty directories.") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see below) a
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
> kernel/user_namespace.c between commits 3c0411846118 ("switch the rest
> of proc_ns_operations to working with &...->ns") and 64964528b24e
> ("make proc_ns_operations work with struct ns_common
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
kernel/user_namespace.c between commits 3c0411846118 ("switch the rest
of proc_ns_operations to working with &...->ns") and 64964528b24e
("make proc_ns_operations work with struct ns_common * instead of void
*") from the vfs tr
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
kernel/user_namespace.c between commits 3c0411846118 ("switch the rest
of proc_ns_operations to working with &...->ns") and 64964528b24e
("make proc_ns_operations work with struct ns_common * instead of void
*") from the vfs tr
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in
include/linux/user_namespace.h and kernel/user.c between commit
435d5f4bb2cc ("common object embedded into various struct ns") from
the vfs tree and commit 2b714ea67ed4 ("userns: Add a knob to disable
setgroups on a per user
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/nfs/client.c between commit 21e81002f978 ("nfs: fix kernel warning
when removing proc entry") from the nfs tree and commit a1998908ba46
("nfs: fix kernel warning when removing proc entry") from the userns
tree. Slightly dif
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c between commit e4e7602f3304 ("btrfs: protect snapshots
from deleting during send") from the btrfs tree and commit 23135a9bd700
("vfs: Make d_invalidate return void") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see be
On Thu, 17 Apr 2014 01:44:21 -0700 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
>
> Al Viro writes:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:06:57PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Eric,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
> >> fs/namespace.c between vario
Al Viro writes:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:06:57PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
>> fs/namespace.c between various commits from Linus' tree and various
>> commits from the userns tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (hopefu
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 03:06:57PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
> fs/namespace.c between various commits from Linus' tree and various
> commits from the userns tree.
>
> I fixed it up (hopefully - see below) and can ca
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/namespace.c between various commits from Linus' tree and various
commits from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (hopefully - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary
(no action is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/namespace.c between commits from Linus' tree and commits from the
userns tree.
I fixed it up (I used the conflict resolution that your sent to Linus -
see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action is required).
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in fs/namei.c
between commits from Linus' tree and commits 3dd905eaa258 ("vfs: Don't
allow overwriting mounts in the current mount namespace") and
f43d102a391d ("vfs: Lazily remove mounts on unlinked files and
directories") from t
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in fs/dcache.c
between commit da1ce0670c14 ("vfs: add cross-rename") from Linus' tree
and commit f43d102a391d ("vfs: Lazily remove mounts on unlinked files and
directories") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got conflicts in
arch/mips/include/asm/vpe.h and arch/mips/kernel/vpe.c between commits
1a2a6d7e8816 ("MIPS: APRP: Split VPE loader into separate files") and
5792bf643865 ("MIPS: APRP: Code formatting clean-ups") from the mips tree
and commit f5
Hi Al,
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:50:55 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Al, I do have to wonder why a commit whose whole commit message is:
>
> "RCU'd vfsmounts
>
> _very_ preliminary, barely tested."
>
> is in linux-next as is not being kept over for v3.14 at this point.
Oh, I see, it was
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in fs/mount.h
between commits 84550b9356af ("RCU'd vfsmounts") and 474279dc0f77 ("split
__lookup_mnt() in two functions") from the vfs tree and commit
d7e58b8abc4f ("vfs: Add a function to lazily unmount all mounts from any
dentry
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in fs/dcache.c
between commit 84550b9356af ("RCU'd vfsmounts") from the vfs tree and
commit 40216baa0101 ("vfs: Lazily remove mounts on unlinked files and
directories. v2") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (I think - see below
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in fs/namei.c
between commits 45b1139e249d ("namei: minor vfs_unlink cleanup"),
0e22d7c4652b ("locks: break delegations on unlink"), 5d375b9f8afb
("locks: helper functions for delegation breaking") and 909b30216356
("locks: break
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/namespace.c between commit aba809cf0944 ("namespace.c: get rid of
mnt_ghosts") from the vfs tree and commit 484df667efe9 ("vfs: Keep a list
of mounts on a mount point") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and ca
Mark Brown writes:
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
> fs/fuse/dir.c between 3c70b8eed (fuse: don't check_submounts_and_drop()
> in RCU walk) in the fuse tree and 40216baa0 (vfs: Lazily remove mounts
> on unlinked files and directories. v2) in the userns tree.
>
> I
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/fuse/dir.c between 3c70b8eed (fuse: don't check_submounts_and_drop()
in RCU walk) in the fuse tree and 40216baa0 (vfs: Lazily remove mounts
on unlinked files and directories. v2) in the userns tree.
I fixed it up as below and can car
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
net/sunrpc/svcauth_unix.c between commit 2d4383383b0b ("SUNRPC: rework
cache upcall logic") from the nfsd tree and commit 7eaf040b720b ("sunrpc:
Use kuid_t and kgid_t where appropriate") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (se
Hi Eric,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:31:07 -0700 ebied...@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
wrote:
>
> Right. To work when user namespace support is enabled fowner needs be
> converted to a kuid_t as well.
>
> When I did a trial earlier this is what I wound up with. As long as
> user namespaces are
Hey Eric (Paris),
this is the second time I've been notified of a merge issue with this
audit patch; Is there something I need to do (or should have done
earlier) to keep this from continuing to be an issue?
Cheers,
peter
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon
Stephen Rothwell writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c between commit 07f6a79415d7 ("ima:
> add appraise action keywords and default rules") from the security tree
> and commit 8b94eea4bfb8 ("userns: Add user nam
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:41:16 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> diff --cc kernel/auditsc.c
> index 37f52f2,ff4798f..000
> --- a/kernel/auditsc.c
> +++ b/kernel/auditsc.c
> @@@ -1160,32 -1151,8 +1152,38 @@@ void audit_log_task_info(struct audit_b
> char name[sizeof(tsk->comm)];
>
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c between commit 07f6a79415d7 ("ima:
add appraise action keywords and default rules") from the security tree
and commit 8b94eea4bfb8 ("userns: Add user namespace support to IMA") from
the usern
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
kernel/auditsc.c between commit e23eb920b0f3 ("audit: export
audit_log_task_info") from the security tree and commits e1760bd5ffae
("userns: Convert the audit loginuid to be a kuid") and cca080d9b622
("userns: Convert audit to
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
fs/ubifs/debug.c between commit 6b38d03f48da ("UBIFS: use pr_ helper
instead of printk") from the ubifs tree and commit 39241beb78f6 ("userns:
Convert ubifs to use kuid/kgid") from the userns tree.
I fixed it up (see below) an
Hi Eric,
Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in
kernel/audit.c between commit 15e473046cb6 ("netlink: Rename pid to
portid to avoid confusion") from the net-next tree and commits
8aa14b64981e ("audit: Simply AUDIT_TTY_SET and AUDIT_TTY_GET") and
017143fecb33 ("audit: Remove
76 matches
Mail list logo
