lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree
    On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:25 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
    > Hi all,

    Hello.

    > > 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 include/linux/lsm_audit.h
    > > index 734d67889826,99d629fd9944..000000000000
    > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
    > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_audit.h
    > > @@@ -74,7 -74,7 +74,8 @@@ struct common_audit_data
    > > #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_FILE 12
    > > #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_IBPKEY 13
    > > #define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_IBENDPORT 14
    > > -#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_LOCKDOWN 15
    > > +#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_NOTIFICATION 15
    > > ++#define LSM_AUDIT_DATA_LOCKDOWN 16
    > > union {
    > > struct path path;
    > > struct dentry *dentry;
    >
    > This is now a conflict between the keys tree and Linus' tree.

    Presumably it basically the same as above? If so, it should be okay
    to renumber the LSM_AUDIT_DATA_xxx defines as needed, they aren't
    visible to userspace in any way, and really shouldn't be visible
    outside of security/.

    --
    paul moore
    www.paul-moore.com

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-01-29 03:28    [W:3.634 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site