linux-next: manual merge of the tomoyo tree with the net-next tree

linux-next: manual merge of the tomoyo tree with the net-next tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 926 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  net/netlink/af_netlink.c

between commits:

  5380d64f8d76 ("rtnetlink: move rtnl_lock handling out of af_netlink")
  5fbf57a937f4 ("net: netlink: remove the cb_mutex "injection" from netlink core")

from the net-next tree and commit:

  c2bfadd666b5 ("rtnetlink: print rtnl_mutex holder/waiter for debug purpose")

from the tomoyo tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the former) 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.

It looks like the tomoyo tree commit should just be completely dropped?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

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

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tomoyo tree with the net-next tree

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2024/06/11 10:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> It looks like the tomoyo tree commit should just be completely dropped?

Thank you for notification.

I want a tree for testing orphaned patches (which nobody is willing to take,
and as a result bugs remain unfixed for years) before sending to Linus, and
a tree for testing debug patches (where nobody can debug without additional
code, and as a result bugs remain unfixed for years).

I am for now using the tomoyo tree for such purpose because linux-next tree
is tested by syzbot. I appreciate if network people can carry c2bfadd666b5
("rtnetlink: print rtnl_mutex holder/waiter for debug purpose") in one of
trees syzbot tests.

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tomoyo tree with the net-next tree

[Tetsuo Handa]

On 2024/06/11 10:20, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> I fixed it up (I just used the former) and can carry the fix as
> necessary.

I updated "rtnetlink: print rtnl_mutex holder/waiter for debug purpose"
patch, and I think that you no longer need to carry the fix.

This patch already found a suspicious culprit, and I added
"net/sched: Sleep before rechecking index at tcf_idr_check_alloc()" patch as
https://sourceforge.net/p/tomoyo/tomoyo.git/ci/35a1fb207602fb5eacf6fe5b8a35456d5dabd631/
to see if hung task message still appears.