linux-kernel - Re: [GIT] Security subsystem changes for 3.1

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

Date:	Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:20:35 +1000 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Security subsystem changes for 3.1

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:42 PM, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, but this conflict was in my subsystem.
> 
> .. but it was a conflict that came from the VFS subsystem changes.
> 
> So it was clearly a cross-subsystem conflict. The fact that the file
> was in what you consider your subsystem IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Because
> clearly somebody ELSE considered the change that conflicted to be part
> of THEIR subsystem!

Ok.  So what should have happened here (fb408e6ccc) is that Al should have 
emailed the patch to me to apply to my tree, instead of pushing it 
directly?


- 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/