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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux USB Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux