linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the vfs 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1451910748.2772.35.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:32:28 -0500
From:	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Petko Manolov <petkan@...-labs.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the vfs tree

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:23 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mimi,
> 
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:06:37 -0500 Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 03:16 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, I'm going to pull the part that introduces memdup_user_nul() into
> > > a never-rebased branch and if security.git is willing to pull it and handle
> > > that conversion in ima_write_policy() themselves, I'll be only glad to drop
> > > the corresponding chunk in vfs.git#for-next  
> > 
> > As memdup_user_nul() is not in the security tree, it would break the
> > security tree builds.  Having the patch in the linux-integrity/next
> > branch wouldn't help matters.
> 
> I think Al intends for you to merge his "never-rebased branch" that
> contains the memdup_user_nul patch into the integrity tree (or James to
> merge it into the security tree).  He will also merge the same branch
> into his vfs tree and remove the patch that updates ima_write_policy()
> to use memdup_user_nul() and you (or James) could apply that patch in
> the integrity (or security) tree.
> 
> This way we end up with the same commit creating memdup_user_nul() in
> both trees and no left over conflicts.

Thank you for the explanation.  It sounds like a plan.  James, are you
ok with this?

Mimi


--
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/