linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the asm-generic 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]

Date:   Sat, 28 Oct 2023 11:30:44 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.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 security tree with the
 asm-generic tree

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:52 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
>   arch/ia64/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>
> between commit:
>
>   cf8e8658100d ("arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture")
>
> from the asm-generic tree and commit:
>
>   6d54f25e4605 ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I just deleted the file) 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.

Thanks Stephen, I'll update the LSM tree if/when the ia64 code is
removed from Linus' tree.

-- 
paul-moore.com