linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the vfs-brauner 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]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhReKtzhTBbOxDWWeP7Tk=VoxVrYsLPt-v6TPCnwzKEiXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 15:45:54 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the
 vfs-brauner tree

On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 11:27 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
>   fs/fcntl.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   1934b212615d ("file: reclaim 24 bytes from f_owner")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
>   26f204380a3c ("fs: Fix file_set_fowner LSM hook inconsistencies")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell

Thanks Stephen, the fixup looked from from a LSM perspective.

-- 
paul-moore.com