linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the vfs-brauner tree

linux-next: manual merge of the nolibc tree with the vfs-brauner tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2335 bytes --]

Hi all,

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

  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c

between commit:

  49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")

from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:

  148e9718e2a2 ("selftests/nolibc: add chmod_argv0 test")

from the nolibc 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 tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
index 970df9e55131,e2b70641a1e7..000000000000
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
@@@ -572,11 -857,14 +857,13 @@@ int run_syscall(int min, int max
  		CASE_TEST(kill_0);            EXPECT_SYSZR(1, kill(getpid(), 0)); break;
  		CASE_TEST(kill_CONT);         EXPECT_SYSZR(1, kill(getpid(), 0)); break;
  		CASE_TEST(kill_BADPID);       EXPECT_SYSER(1, kill(INT_MAX, 0), -1, ESRCH); break;
+ 		CASE_TEST(sbrk_0);            EXPECT_PTRNE(1, sbrk(0), (void *)-1); break;
  		CASE_TEST(sbrk);              if ((p1 = p2 = sbrk(4096)) != (void *)-1) p2 = sbrk(-4096); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, (p2 == (void *)-1) || p2 == p1); break;
  		CASE_TEST(brk);               EXPECT_SYSZR(1, brk(sbrk(0))); break;
- 		CASE_TEST(chdir_root);        EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chdir("/")); break;
+ 		CASE_TEST(chdir_root);        EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chdir("/")); chdir(getenv("PWD")); break;
  		CASE_TEST(chdir_dot);         EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chdir(".")); break;
  		CASE_TEST(chdir_blah);        EXPECT_SYSER(1, chdir("/blah"), -1, ENOENT); break;
+ 		CASE_TEST(chmod_argv0);       EXPECT_SYSZR(1, chmod(argv0, 0555)); break;
 -		CASE_TEST(chmod_net);         EXPECT_SYSZR(proc, chmod("/proc/self/net", 0555)); break;
  		CASE_TEST(chmod_self);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chmod("/proc/self", 0555), -1, EPERM); break;
  		CASE_TEST(chown_self);        EXPECT_SYSER(proc, chown("/proc/self", 0, 0), -1, EPERM); break;
  		CASE_TEST(chroot_root);       EXPECT_SYSZR(euid0, chroot("/")); break;

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

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

[Thomas Weißschuh]

Hi everybody,

On 2023-08-24 14:10:08+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the nolibc tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> 
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> 
>   148e9718e2a2 ("selftests/nolibc: add chmod_argv0 test")
> 
> from the nolibc 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.

This is fallout from the recent removal of
"selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net" from the nolibc tree.

Christian:

You mentioned before that you plan to have this series in
-next for some time. If you only submit it to Linux for 6.7 or later
then you have to, if I understand the process correctly, rebase your
-next branch on Linus' master after 6.6-rc1.
6.6-rc1 should contain the conflicting nolibc changes, so you would need
to resolve the conflict during rebasing.
The patch is intentionally made to be easy to resolve conflicts for,
just delete the line containing "CASE_TEST(chmod_net)".

Everyone:

What is your opinion on that?


Sorry for all the inconvenience this tiny series causes!
Thomas

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

[Willy Tarreau]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 08:27:21AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> On 2023-08-24 14:10:08+1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the nolibc tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   49319832de90 ("selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net")
> > 
> > from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
> > 
> >   148e9718e2a2 ("selftests/nolibc: add chmod_argv0 test")
> > 
> > from the nolibc 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.
> 
> This is fallout from the recent removal of
> "selftests/nolibc: drop test chmod_net" from the nolibc tree.
> 
> Christian:
> 
> You mentioned before that you plan to have this series in
> -next for some time. If you only submit it to Linux for 6.7 or later
> then you have to, if I understand the process correctly, rebase your
> -next branch on Linus' master after 6.6-rc1.
> 6.6-rc1 should contain the conflicting nolibc changes, so you would need
> to resolve the conflict during rebasing.
> The patch is intentionally made to be easy to resolve conflicts for,
> just delete the line containing "CASE_TEST(chmod_net)".
> 
> Everyone:
> 
> What is your opinion on that?

I think that if Stephen is okay with temporarily carrying the small fix
he has (which is correct), it could be the simplest way to resolve it
until the branches are merged. Otherwise we can try to adjust again.

Cheers,
Willy

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

[Christian Brauner]

> You mentioned before that you plan to have this series in
> -next for some time. If you only submit it to Linux for 6.7 or later

I'm not sure what this is about. v6.6 was always the plan.

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

[Thomas Weißschuh]

On 2023-08-24 09:36:58+0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > You mentioned before that you plan to have this series in
> > -next for some time. If you only submit it to Linux for 6.7 or later
> 
> I'm not sure what this is about. v6.6 was always the plan.

I'm referring to "In any case, this needs long soaking in -next." [0]

Which I interpreted as "longer than usual", where "usual" would have
been v6.6.

Anyways Linus should also be able to resolve the conflict for v6.6 with
a small hint in the PR.

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230713-schwalben-anproben-6af2eac149fd@brauner/

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

[Christian Brauner]

> Anyways Linus should also be able to resolve the conflict for v6.6 with
> a small hint in the PR.

Suprisingly, we've done this before. :)

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

[Shuah Khan]

On 8/24/23 02:52, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> Anyways Linus should also be able to resolve the conflict for v6.6 with
>> a small hint in the PR.
> 
> Suprisingly, we've done this before. :)

Right. This is how resolve these types of merge conflicts. I will add
note to Linus about this one.

thanks,
-- Shuah