linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:

  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c

between commit:

  9847d24af95c ("selftests/harness: Refactor XFAIL into SKIP")

from the kselftest tree and commits:

  aae7d264d68b ("selftests/seccomp: Check for EPOLLHUP for user_notif")
  11b4beaa0d31 ("selftests/seccomp: Make kcmp() less required")
  ef332c970dfa ("selftests/seccomp: Rename user_trap_syscall() to user_notif_syscall()")

from the seccomp 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 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
index b878e8379966,b854a6c5bf49..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
@@@ -3079,10 -3043,8 +3055,10 @@@ TEST(get_metadata
  	long ret;
  
  	/* Only real root can get metadata. */
 -	if (geteuid())
 -		XFAIL(return, "get_metadata test requires real root");
 +	if (geteuid()) {
- 		SKIP(return, "get_metadata requires real root");
++		SKIP(return, "get_metadata test requires real root");
 +		return;
 +	}
  
  	ASSERT_EQ(0, pipe(pipefd));
  

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:57:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   9847d24af95c ("selftests/harness: Refactor XFAIL into SKIP")
> 
> from the kselftest tree and commits:
> 
>   aae7d264d68b ("selftests/seccomp: Check for EPOLLHUP for user_notif")
>   11b4beaa0d31 ("selftests/seccomp: Make kcmp() less required")
>   ef332c970dfa ("selftests/seccomp: Rename user_trap_syscall() to user_notif_syscall()")
> 
> from the seccomp tree.

Har har -- a collision of my own creation. Yay lots of trees. ;) I'll
make this go away; the cause is a harmless cleanup.

> 
> 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 tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index b878e8379966,b854a6c5bf49..000000000000
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@@ -3079,10 -3043,8 +3055,10 @@@ TEST(get_metadata
>   	long ret;
>   
>   	/* Only real root can get metadata. */
>  -	if (geteuid())
>  -		XFAIL(return, "get_metadata test requires real root");
>  +	if (geteuid()) {
> - 		SKIP(return, "get_metadata requires real root");
> ++		SKIP(return, "get_metadata test requires real root");
>  +		return;
>  +	}
>   
>   	ASSERT_EQ(0, pipe(pipefd));
>   



-- 
Kees Cook

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Shuah Khan]

On 7/7/20 2:26 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:57:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    9847d24af95c ("selftests/harness: Refactor XFAIL into SKIP")
>>
>> from the kselftest tree and commits:
>>
>>    aae7d264d68b ("selftests/seccomp: Check for EPOLLHUP for user_notif")
>>    11b4beaa0d31 ("selftests/seccomp: Make kcmp() less required")
>>    ef332c970dfa ("selftests/seccomp: Rename user_trap_syscall() to user_notif_syscall()")
>>
>> from the seccomp tree.
> 
> Har har -- a collision of my own creation. Yay lots of trees. ;) I'll
> make this go away; the cause is a harmless cleanup.
> 

Thanks Kees. Let me know if I have to do anything.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Kees Cook]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:27:59PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 7/7/20 2:26 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:57:20PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
> > > 
> > >    tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > > 
> > > between commit:
> > > 
> > >    9847d24af95c ("selftests/harness: Refactor XFAIL into SKIP")
> > > 
> > > from the kselftest tree and commits:
> > > 
> > >    aae7d264d68b ("selftests/seccomp: Check for EPOLLHUP for user_notif")
> > >    11b4beaa0d31 ("selftests/seccomp: Make kcmp() less required")
> > >    ef332c970dfa ("selftests/seccomp: Rename user_trap_syscall() to user_notif_syscall()")
> > > 
> > > from the seccomp tree.
> > 
> > Har har -- a collision of my own creation. Yay lots of trees. ;) I'll
> > make this go away; the cause is a harmless cleanup.
> > 
> 
> Thanks Kees. Let me know if I have to do anything.

Yeah, as it turns out, I could only minimize the conflict, and I think
I'll just mention it when I send the seccomp pull request for the v5.9
merge window.

Thanks!

-- 
Kees Cook

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 220 bytes --]

Hi Shuah,

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 16:24:04 -0600 Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> This is sorted out. I added a note to my pull request.

Thanks for letting me know.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Shuah Khan]

On 8/4/20 11:45 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:59:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    4c6614dc86ad ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
>>
>> from the kselftest tree and commit:
>>
>>    11eb004ef7ea ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
>>
>> from the seccomp tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.
> 
> This is now a conflict between the kselftest tree and Linus' tree.
> 

This is sorted out. I added a note to my pull request.

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 990 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:59:17 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   4c6614dc86ad ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
> 
> from the kselftest tree and commit:
> 
>   11eb004ef7ea ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")
> 
> from the seccomp tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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.

This is now a conflict between the kselftest 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 seccomp tree with the kselftest tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the seccomp tree got a conflict in:

  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c

between commit:

  4c6614dc86ad ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")

from the kselftest tree and commit:

  11eb004ef7ea ("selftests/seccomp: Check ENOSYS under tracing")

from the seccomp tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter version) 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

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