Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor tree

[John Johansen]

On 12/13/22 15:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:46:53 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
> >
> >    security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> >
> > between commits:
> >
> >    371e50a0b19f ("apparmor: make unpack_array return a trianary value")
> >    32490541682b ("apparmor: Fix kunit test for out of bounds array")
> >
> > from the apparmor tree and commit:
> >
> >    2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
> >
> > from the kunit-next 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 security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> > index 7465da42492d,f25cf2a023d5..000000000000
> > --- a/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> > +++ b/security/apparmor/policy_unpack_test.c
> > @@@ -144,8 -147,8 +147,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_a
> >    
> >    	puf->e->pos += TEST_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET;
> >    
> > - 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, unpack_array(puf->e, NULL, &array_size),
> >   -	array_size = aa_unpack_array(puf->e, NULL);
> >   -
> > ++	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, aa_unpack_array(puf->e, NULL, &array_size),
> >   +			TRI_TRUE);
> >    	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, (u16)TEST_ARRAY_SIZE);
> >    	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos,
> >    		puf->e->start + TEST_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET + sizeof(u16) + 1);
> > @@@ -159,8 -162,8 +162,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_a
> >    
> >    	puf->e->pos += TEST_NAMED_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET;
> >    
> > - 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, unpack_array(puf->e, name, &array_size),
> >   -	array_size = aa_unpack_array(puf->e, name);
> >   -
> > ++	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, aa_unpack_array(puf->e, name, &array_size),
> >   +			TRI_TRUE);
> >    	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, (u16)TEST_ARRAY_SIZE);
> >    	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos,
> >    		puf->e->start + TEST_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET + sizeof(u16) + 1);
> > @@@ -175,8 -178,9 +178,8 @@@ static void policy_unpack_test_unpack_a
> >    	puf->e->pos += TEST_NAMED_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET;
> >    	puf->e->end = puf->e->start + TEST_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET + sizeof(u16);
> >    
> > - 	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, unpack_array(puf->e, name, &array_size),
> >   -	array_size = aa_unpack_array(puf->e, name);
> >   -
> >   -	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, array_size, 0);
> > ++	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, aa_unpack_array(puf->e, name, &array_size),
> >   +			TRI_FALSE);
> >    	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, puf->e->pos,
> >    		puf->e->start + TEST_NAMED_ARRAY_BUF_OFFSET);
> >    }
>
> This is now a conflict between the apparmor tree and Linus' tree.


sorry for the delay on this, build and regression testing took way
longer than they should have.

apparmor merge request is now sent