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

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSB4++aQJBD9ezvX=Bq+E-XvUVb+gS1hTgJm=xj3HtBrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:28:11 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        James Morris <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:25 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,

Hello.

> > 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 include/linux/lsm_audit.h
> > index 734d67889826,99d629fd9944..000000000000
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
> > @@@ -74,7 -74,7 +74,8 @@@ struct common_audit_data
> >   #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_FILE 12
> >   #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_IBPKEY       13
> >   #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_IBENDPORT 14
> >  -#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_LOCKDOWN 15
> >  +#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_NOTIFICATION 15
> > ++#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_LOCKDOWN 16
> >       union   {
> >               struct path path;
> >               struct dentry *dentry;
>
> This is now a conflict between the keys tree and Linus' tree.

Presumably it basically the same as above?  If so, it should be okay
to renumber the LSM_AUDIT_DATA_xxx defines as needed, they aren't
visible to userspace in any way, and really shouldn't be visible
outside of security/.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com