[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQa1oXQ6duzUYrUq1NVdJKqo=wgorAgkHdGxTz_eNKeJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:03:10 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:35 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got conflicts in:
>
> security/selinux/include/security.h
> security/selinux/ss/services.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 87b14da5b76a ("security/selinux: Add support for new key permissions")
>
> from the keys tree and commit:
>
> 7470d0d13fb6 ("selinux: allow kernfs symlinks to inherit parent directory context")
>
> from the selinux tree.
Thanks for bringing this up Stephen, I wasn't aware that patch had hit
the keys tree.
Unless I missed a message in the SELinux mailing list thread regarding
the "security/selinux: Add support for new key permissions" patch, I
thought there were some outstanding questions (well, just a single big
one I guess) that needed to be resolved before this could go upstream;
did you put this in the keys tree David just for some additional
testing, or because you wanted to send it up to Linus via your tree?
If the latter, I would really prefer if this goes to Linus via SELinux
tree as it conflicts with some SELinux ABI changes and I would rather
we handle that in the SELinux tree instead of having to send manual
merge instructions up to Linus during the next merge window.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists