Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:38:57 -0800 | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor tree | From | John Johansen <> |
| |
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
|  |