linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] LSM patches for v6.6

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: <CAHk-=wgvT9yJT+QwWHArnO7c64_g3kXzMi5xr7j-a55kZAdGhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Aug 2023 09:14:03 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] LSM patches for v6.6

On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 16:37, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> Ten LSM patches for the Linux v6.6 merge window, and while most of
> them are fairly minor, there is at least one merge conflict involving
> security_sk_classify_flow() in security/security.c; it looks like a
> netdev constification patch collided with a LSM documentation patch,
> thankfully the solution is relatively simple but if for some odd
> reason you need a respin let me know.

Oh, no, trivial things like these are truly not a problem at all.

The only time I may ask people to help with the resolution (or, more
commonly, ask them to just double-check what I did) is when there is
an actual and subtle code conflict where the code in question has been
re-organized a lot, and both sides did something fairly involved, and
the end result isn't really obvious.

For something like this, I do ask for it to be noted in the pull
request - exactly like  you did - but even that is mainly so that

 (a) I don't get surprised when I do the pull and see that I need to
resolve something, and

 (b) to give me the warm and fuzzies that the maintainers in question
have actually noticed and followed up on the reports from linux-next.

So absolutely no need for any re-spin, and you did the right thing. Thanks,

                      Linus