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

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