linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the security tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:59:19 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the security tree

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
>
>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   22402b0b736d ("security: convert security hooks to use hlist")
>
> from the security tree and commit:
>
>   72e89f50084c ("security: Add support for SCTP security hooks")
>
> from the selinux 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.

That looks right, thanks Stephen.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com