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

John Johansen
2022-12-14T18:39:08Z

On 12/13/22 15:58, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:46:53 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> 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