From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the userns tree with the tip tree Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:49:49 -0500 Message-ID: <87d0sbpxmq.fsf@xmission.com> References: <20181015151159.5ce4faa5@canb.auug.org.au> <20181015153437.70179aaf@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181015153437.70179aaf@canb.auug.org.au> (Stephen Rothwell's message of "Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:34:37 +1100") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Hansen List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org Stephen Rothwell writes: > Hi all, > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:11:59 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the userns tree got a conflict in: >> >> arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> >> between commit: >> >> 164477c2331b ("x86/mm: Clarify hardware vs. software "error_code"") >> (and others from that series) >> >> from the tip tree and commits: >> >> 768fd9c69bb5 ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from bad_area_nosemaphore") >> 25c102d803ea ("signal/x86: Remove pkey parameter from mm_fault_error") >> >> from the userns tree. >> >> I fixed it up (I think - 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/x86/mm/fault.c >> index c2e3e5127ebc,8d77700a7883..000000000000 >> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c >> +/* Handle faults in the user portion of the address space */ >> +static inline >> +void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, >> + unsigned long hw_error_code, >> + unsigned long address) >> +{ >> + unsigned long sw_error_code; >> + struct vm_area_struct *vma; >> + struct task_struct *tsk; >> + struct mm_struct *mm; >> + vm_fault_t fault, major = 0; >> + unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE; >> + u32 pkey; > > I missed removing the above line. Yes. At first glance with the above change it looks like you got it. Eric