linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with Linus' 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: <CAHC9VhSgxNy93KZFfmG8-0-MqTVE-WuDbJNGz=c4NSEnmTWPuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 21:26:55 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     "GONG, Ruiqi" <gongruiqi1@...wei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with Linus' tree

On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 8:44 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/ss/services.c
>   security/selinux/ss/sidtab.c
>   security/selinux/ss/sidtab.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   abe3c631447d ("selinux: enable use of both GFP_KERNEL and GFP_ATOMIC in convert_context()")
>
> from Linus' tree and commit:
>
>   048be156491f ("selinux: remove the sidtab context conversion indirect calls")
>
> from the selinux tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and applied the following merge fix patch
> as well 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.

I had to make a similar patch for my own testing.  Thanks Stephen.

Out of curiosity, is there an established procedure for notifying
linux-next about such conflicts?  I'm happy to let Stephen find it on
his own and handle the merge for linux-next, but it seems like there
is some duplicated work here ...

-- 
paul-moore.com