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

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2022 10:58:30 +1100

Hi all,

On Thu, 8 Dec 2022 12:46:53 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell