linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the arm tree

linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the arm tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1216 bytes --]

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")

from the userns tree.

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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index 3b1ba003c4f9,32034543f49c..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@@ -163,9 -163,8 +163,11 @@@ __do_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk
  {
  	struct siginfo si;
  
 +	if (addr > TASK_SIZE)
 +		harden_branch_predictor();
 +
+ 	clear_siginfo(&si);
+ 
  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_USER
  	if (((user_debug & UDBG_SEGV) && (sig == SIGSEGV)) ||
  	    ((user_debug & UDBG_BUS)  && (sig == SIGBUS))) {

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1482 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 30 May 2018 18:30:58 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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:
> 
>   3eb0f5193b49 ("signal: Ensure every siginfo we send has all bits initialized")
> 
> from the userns tree.
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> index 3b1ba003c4f9,32034543f49c..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> @@@ -163,9 -163,8 +163,11 @@@ __do_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk
>   {
>   	struct siginfo si;
>   
>  +	if (addr > TASK_SIZE)
>  +		harden_branch_predictor();
>  +
> + 	clear_siginfo(&si);
> + 
>   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_USER
>   	if (((user_debug & UDBG_SEGV) && (sig == SIGSEGV)) ||
>   	    ((user_debug & UDBG_BUS)  && (sig == SIGBUS))) {

This is now a conflict between the arm tree and Linus' tree.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the arm tree

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

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 bits initialized")

from the userns tree.

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.

diff --cc arch/arm/mm/fault.c
index 3b1ba003c4f9,32034543f49c..000000000000
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@@ -163,9 -163,8 +163,11 @@@ __do_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk
  {
  	struct siginfo si;
  
+ 	clear_siginfo(&si);
+ 
 +	if (addr > TASK_SIZE)
 +		harden_branch_predictor();
 +
  #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_USER
  	if (((user_debug & UDBG_SEGV) && (sig == SIGSEGV)) ||
  	    ((user_debug & UDBG_BUS)  && (sig == SIGBUS))) {

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

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

[Eric W. Biederman]

Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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: Ensure every siginfo we send has all bits initialized")
>
> from the userns tree.
>
> 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.

Mark.  Did you get a bounce from this email?

I saw this when perusing lkml but I did not receive a copy of this
directly to myself.

Eric

> diff --cc arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> index 3b1ba003c4f9,32034543f49c..000000000000
> --- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
> @@@ -163,9 -163,8 +163,11 @@@ __do_user_fault(struct task_struct *tsk
>   {
>   	struct siginfo si;
>   
> + 	clear_siginfo(&si);
> + 
>  +	if (addr > TASK_SIZE)
>  +		harden_branch_predictor();
>  +
>   #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_USER
>   	if (((user_debug & UDBG_SEGV) && (sig == SIGSEGV)) ||
>   	    ((user_debug & UDBG_BUS)  && (sig == SIGBUS))) {

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

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 01:29:55PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> 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 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.

> Mark.  Did you get a bounce from this email?

> I saw this when perusing lkml but I did not receive a copy of this
> directly to myself.

Turns out xmission has decided to blacklist it, no idea why.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]