Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the netfilter tree

[Jann Horn]

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, both of the checks from the netfilter tree are still necessary
independent of the commit from the vfs tree.

> I fixed it up (see below)

Did you mean to paste in the fixed-up patch below this message?

> 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.