From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751581Ab2LQEB0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:01:26 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:56931 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750966Ab2LQEBY (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:01:24 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Linus Torvalds Cc: James Morris , LSM List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , David Howells References: Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:01:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:51:05 -0800") Message-ID: <8738z5nx85.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1+gJINr5P1y9MiOfgkIfqsgHEaIfFgngsQ= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.153.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 2.2 XMSubMetaSxObfu_03 Obfuscated Sexy Noun-People * 1.6 XMSubMetaSx_00 1+ Sexy Words * 0.0 T_XMDrugObfuBody_00 obfuscated drug references X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa01 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Linus Torvalds X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [GIT] Security subsystem updates for 3.8 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:05:19 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:28 AM, James Morris wrote: >> A quiet cycle for the security subsystem with just a few maintenance >> updates. > > Ok, pulled. There were a few trivial conflicts (mostly due to some of > the key allocation patches having already been merged, and some of the > kuid/kgid changes due to the userns changes). > > I'd like you to double-check the end result, but it *looks* fine. > Adding both EricB and DavidH to the participants since the conflicts > were generally due to intetractions with their patches. I just read through the conflict resolution and I don't see any kuid/kgid problems. I am surprised that there were any kuid/kgid conflicts as all of my changes in that area were in 3.6-rc1. Eric