From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 11:10:35 +1100 Message-ID: <20171207111035.7c22d7c0@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:54925 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751604AbdLGAKh (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:10:37 -0500 Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Al Viro , Pablo Neira Ayuso , NetFilter Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jann Horn 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