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:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 11:03:52 -0700
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kunit-next tree with the apparmor
 tree

On 12/12/22 10:52, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On 12/8/22 13:10, John Johansen wrote:
>> On 12/7/22 18:53, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the kunit-next tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    security/apparmor/policy_unpack.c
>>>
>>> between commits:
>>>
>>>    371e50a0b19f ("apparmor: make unpack_array return a trianary value")
>>>    73c7e91c8bc9 ("apparmor: Remove unnecessary size check when unpacking trans_table")
>>>    217af7e2f4de ("apparmor: refactor profile rules and attachments")
>>> (and probably others)
>>>
>>> from the apparmor tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")
>>>
>>> from the kunit-next tree.
>>>
>>> This is somewhat of a mess ... pity there is not a shared branch (or
>>> better routing if the patches).
>>>
>> sorry, there was a miscommunication/misunderstanding, probably all on me, I
>> thought the kunit stuff that is conflicting here was going to merge next
>> cycle.
>>
> 

How about I just drop the following for now and handle this in the next cycle?
I think it might be least confusing option. Let me know. I can just do that
and then send pull request in a day or tow once things settle down in next.

2c92044683f5 ("apparmor: test: make static symbols visible during kunit testing")

thanks,
-- Shuah

Powered by blists - more mailing lists