[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250704060447.GC4199@sol>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 23:04:47 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
"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 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?
Thanks,
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists