linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID changes for v5.10

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]

Message-ID: <CAJ-EccPLAD5TGg=KQ-m54ymrVdd++Dg7A_UR+v535iOVRsDe4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:01:29 -0700
From:   Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID changes for v5.10

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:06 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> These were rebased since the merge window started, for no apparent reason.
>
> Were they in linux-next?

Yeah, they are changes that were originally targeting the v5.9 merge
window (and thus were in -next during July/August) but I didn't get
the chance to send a pull request for them. Since I didn't touch my
-next branch since then they are also in 'next-20201013' and
'next-20201015'.

I just rebased to v5.9 to make sure the 1-line changes that touch
kernel/capability.c, kernel/groups.c and kernel/sys.c still applied
cleanly without conflicts. Should I have rebased onto one of the -rc's
for v5.9 instead?

>
> And if so, why was I sent some different version?
>
>              Linus