linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the keys-next tree with the modules 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2280990.1769809836@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 21:50:36 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
    Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
    Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
    Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the keys-next tree with the modules tree

Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Thanks, Mark. David, I see the patches in keys-next were updated just
> > a few hours ago. Would it make sense for you to rebase them on top of
> > next-20260129? Petr's patch removed the use_signed_attrs variable, so
> > we should ensure it's still initialized correctly. Otherwise the
> > resolution looks trivial.
> 
> Please don't base anything on -next itself, that causes all kinds of
> problems and clearly isn't what you should be sending to Linus.

I was wondering if I should rebase on a merge between Eric's branch and Sami's
branch and "pre-handle" the conflict.

David