From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1033005AbeE0SaO (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2018 14:30:14 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:53659 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751425AbeE0SaL (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 May 2018 14:30:11 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Mark Brown Cc: Russell King , Florian Fainelli , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180525101455.GI4828@sirena.org.uk> Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 13:29:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20180525101455.GI4828@sirena.org.uk> (Mark Brown's message of "Fri, 25 May 2018 11:14:55 +0100") Message-ID: <876039uf30.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=1fN0Qh-0002bt-78;;;mid=<876039uf30.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.174.25;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+oOol4SMsdzN3Y0zFausRl+lY8eUGUouU= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.174.25 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 BAYES_40 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 20 to 40% * [score: 0.3024] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Mark Brown X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 400 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.0 (0.8%), b_tie_ro: 2.0 (0.5%), parse: 1.20 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 4.5 (1.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.93 (0.5%), tests_pri_-1000: 6 (1.5%), tests_pri_-950: 2.0 (0.5%), tests_pri_-900: 1.60 (0.4%), tests_pri_-400: 27 (6.8%), check_bayes: 25 (6.3%), b_tokenize: 10 (2.4%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (1.6%), b_comp_prob: 3.7 (0.9%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.6 (0.6%), b_finish: 0.80 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 327 (81.6%), check_dkim_signature: 0.84 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 5.0 (1.2%), tests_pri_500: 6 (1.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the arm 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 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: 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))) {