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: <CADvbK_fpLHQEysz4XFAfkB3gnkXgDLitjPCQTYbAx3NMZhiXaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:12:28 +0800
From:   Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@...nternet.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the net-next tree

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 12:40:54 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>   net/sctp/socket.c
>>>
>>> between several refactoring commits from the net-next tree and commit:
>>>
>>>   2277c7cd75e3 ("sctp: Add LSM hooks")
>>>
>>> from the selinux tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (I think - 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
>>
>> The resolution now looks like below (there were more changes to this
>> file in the net-next tree).  It will keep changing every time this file
>> is touched :-(
>
> Xin Long, does this still look okay to you?
Yes, it's good.

I forgot "struct sctp_af *af;" would be there there when submitting:

   commit 2c0dbaa sctp: add support for SCTP_DSTADDRV4/6 Information for sendmsg

and should have put some notes for David.

Thanks for your reminding.