netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the keys tree with the bpf-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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 5 Apr 2020 11:02:51 +1000
From:   Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the keys tree with the bpf-next
 tree

Hi all,

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 13:06:36 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the keys tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   98e828a0650f ("security: Refactor declaration of LSM hooks")
> 
> from the bpf-next tree and commits:
> 
>   e8fa137bb3cb ("security: Add hooks to rule on setting a watch")
>   858bc27762c1 ("security: Add a hook for the point of notification insertion")
> 
> from the keys tree.
> 
> I fixed it up (I used the former version of this file and added the
> following merge resolution patch) 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.
> 
> From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 12:55:31 +1100
> Subject: [PATCH] security: keys: fixup for "security: Refactor declaration of
>  LSM hooks"
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
> ---
>  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> index 9cd4455528e5..4f8d63fd1327 100644
> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h
> @@ -252,6 +252,16 @@ LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_notifysecctx, struct inode *inode, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_setsecctx, struct dentry *dentry, void *ctx, u32 ctxlen)
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, inode_getsecctx, struct inode *inode, void **ctx,
>  	 u32 *ctxlen)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_KEY_NOTIFICATIONS
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, watch_key, struct key *key)
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVICE_NOTIFICATIONS
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, watch_devices, void)
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_WATCH_QUEUE
> +LSM_HOOK(int, 0, post_notification, const struct cred *w_cred,
> +	 const struct cred *cred, struct watch_notification *n)
> +#endif
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK
>  LSM_HOOK(int, 0, unix_stream_connect, struct sock *sock, struct sock *other,
> -- 
> 2.25.0

This is now a conflict between the keys tree and Linus' tree.
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped