netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRNpw4cZeZJpsce8s2z+DVSMK2NK0Dzu9xHq=TwTiaQ+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:28:43 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     lucien.xin@...il.com, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        richard_c_haines@...nternet.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the net-next tree

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 3:26 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:20:33 -0500
>
>>> So you would only have to wait until my tree went in before
>>> sending your pull request.
>>
>> So you would want me to rebase selinux/next on top of Linus' tree in
>> the middle of the merge window?  I'm sure that isn't what you meant,
>> but that's how I keep reading the above ... which can't be right,
>> because in my experience that's one way to piss off Linus.  Help me
>> understand what you are saying.
>
> I never said you rebase anything.  I wonder where you get that from.

As I said, I was just trying to figure out what you were suggesting.
Your email was not very clear in my opinion.

> I'm saying, you just defer your pull request until Linus takes my
> networking tree in.
>
> No changes or rebasing of your tree is necessary whatsoever.  You just
> ask him to pull your tree as-is.
>
> Again, this is what other smaller subsystem trees do when they have a
> situation like this.

Which gets us back to what I originally suggested in my first email of
this thread: linux-next carries the fixup patch and when we send the
pull requests to Linus we mention this fixup/thread.

For what it's worth, if you mention the potential merge conflict, and
the fixup that Stephen provided, it shouldn't matter when the pull
requests are sent to Linus; he's a smart guy, he'll merge things in
the order he wants.  I've seen more than a few people get burned by
deferring pull requests, I don't intend to have SELinux, or audit for
that matter, run into the same problem.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com