linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the net-next 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRP4bKeBYcEe-xkdsXKa9XJLPxObkorTSbmE85WxT0AoA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:21:14 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the net-next tree

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:50 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.orgau> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
>   security/security.c
>
> between commits:
>
>   1b67772e4e3f ("bpf,lsm: Refactor bpf_prog_alloc/bpf_prog_free LSM hooks")
>   a2431c7eabcf ("bpf,lsm: Refactor bpf_map_alloc/bpf_map_free LSM hooks")
>   f568a3d49af9 ("bpf,lsm: Add BPF token LSM hooks")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>   260017f31a8c ("lsm: use default hook return value in call_int_hook()")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (I think, see below) 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, this looks correct.

-- 
paul-moore.com