netdev - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 14:41:35 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>, Khadija Kamran <kamrankhadijadj@...il.com>, 
	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 security tree with the net-next tree

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:42 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
>   security/security.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   5b52ad34f948 ("security: Constify sk in the sk_getsecid hook.")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
>   bd1f5934e460 ("lsm: add comment block for security_sk_classify_flow LSM hook")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (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
>
> diff --cc security/security.c
> index 2dfc7b9f6ed9,9177fd0968bd..000000000000
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@@ -4396,7 -4421,14 +4421,14 @@@ void security_sk_clone(const struct soc
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_clone);
>
> + /**
> +  * security_sk_classify_flow() - Set a flow's secid based on socket
> +  * @sk: original socket
> +  * @flic: target flow
> +  *
> +  * Set the target flow's secid to socket's secid.
> +  */
>  -void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
>  +void security_sk_classify_flow(const struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
>   {
>         call_void_hook(sk_getsecid, sk, &flic->flowic_secid);
>   }

Thanks Stephen, it's obviously a trivial fixup, but it looks correct to me.

-- 
paul-moore.com