From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752318AbeCUODT (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:03:19 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:45690 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751801AbeCUODR (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 10:03:17 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180321172658.45b892a3@canb.auug.org.au> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:02:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180321172658.45b892a3@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:26:58 +1100") Message-ID: <87zi31y1b5.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1eyeKS-0000bU-KH;;;mid=<87zi31y1b5.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.121.173;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/WZKLs4n+CdokHYJkdfkcIzZbZ1M1HxW4= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.121.173 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 1.2 LotsOfNums_01 BODY: Lots of long strings of numbers * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa07 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;Stephen Rothwell X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 15024 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.05 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.1 (0.0%), b_tie_ro: 2.1 (0.0%), parse: 1.11 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 12 (0.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.62 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.9 (0.0%), tests_pri_-950: 1.18 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 0.96 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 27 (0.2%), check_bayes: 26 (0.2%), b_tokenize: 8 (0.1%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.0%), b_comp_prob: 2.6 (0.0%), b_tok_touch_all: 6 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.69 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 150 (1.0%), check_dkim_signature: 0.84 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.7 (0.0%), tests_pri_500: 14823 (98.7%), poll_dns_idle: 14814 (98.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the fuse tree X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 gids") > 8cb08329b080 ("fuse: Support fuse filesystems outside of init_user_ns") > > from the fuse tree and 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 filesystems outside of init_user_ns") > > from the userns tree. > > These commits seem to have been rebased in the fuse tree on top of > > 3b7008b226f3 ("fuse: return -ECONNABORTED on /dev/fuse read after abort") > > and modified a bit. > > I fixed it up (I used the fuse tree version, but please come to > some arrangement about which is correct) 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. As Miklos has merged these I plan to drop these changes from my tree. Eric