[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0905221903020.12996@tundra.namei.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 19:04:10 +1000 (EST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security-testing tree with Linus'
tree
On Fri, 22 May 2009, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 03:29:01PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the security-testing tree got a conflict in
> > fs/exec.c between commits a44ddbb6d8a8ffe4e34e417048dfdd8f3dd1de4f ("Make
> > open_exec() and sys_uselib() use may_open(), instead of duplicating its
> > parts") and 6e8341a11eb21826b7192d0bb88cb5b44900a9af ("Switch open_exec()
> > and sys_uselib() to do_open_filp()") from Linus' tree and commit
> > b9fc745db833bbf74b4988493b8cd902a84c9415 ("integrity: path_check update")
> > from the security-testing tree.
> >
> > I used the version of these conflicts from Linus' tree as I assume that
> > the changes to may_open() from the latter patch are sufficient. Please
> > check and let me know (or merge Linus' tree and do the resolution for
> > yourself :-)).
>
> Just drop their changes to sys_uselib() and open_exec() and keep the
> rest of their patch.
I've merged Linus' tree into mine and done the above, see fs/exec.c in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/security-testing-2.6#next
(I don't know how to get the conflict resolution diff out of git).
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists