linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the apparmor tree with the libcrypto 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: <d7393780-d48a-49f6-b9dc-cca97a2e18fe@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 13:14:11 -0700
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
 Linux Crypto List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
 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 apparmor tree with the libcrypto
 tree

On 7/3/25 23:04, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 03:36:30PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the apparmor tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    security/apparmor/crypto.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    ad7ca74e1c60 ("apparmor: use SHA-256 library API instead of crypto_shash API")
>>
>> from the libcrypto tree and commit:
>>
>>    e9ed1eb8f621 ("apparmor: use SHA-256 library API instead of crypto_shash API")
>>
>> from the apparmor tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (I used the former version since it appears to be much
>> newer) 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.  John, can you drop your version when you have a chance?
> 

Ooops, sorry. done