linux-kernel - linux-next: manual merge of the security 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221121142014.0ae7c8ff@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:20:14 +1100
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Gaosheng Cui <cuigaosheng1@...wei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with Linus' tree

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:

  security/commoncap.c

between commit:

  8cf0a1bc1287 ("capabilities: fix potential memleak on error path from vfs_getxattr_alloc()")

from Linus' tree and commit:

  f6fbd8cbf3ed ("lsm,fs: fix vfs_getxattr_alloc() return type and caller error paths")

from the security tree.

I fixed it up (I just used the latter) 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

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped