From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the vfs tree Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:32:28 -0500 Message-ID: <1451910748.2772.35.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20160104135221.0e5515ac@canb.auug.org.au> <20160104031621.GP9938@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <1451883997.2772.27.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160104162308.52349acd@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([125.16.236.7]:53701 "EHLO e28smtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753603AbcADMcs (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 07:32:48 -0500 Received: from localhost by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:02:45 +0530 In-Reply-To: <20160104162308.52349acd@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Al Viro , Dmitry Kasatkin , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Petko Manolov , James Morris On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:23 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mimi, > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:06:37 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 03:16 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, I'm going to pull the part that introduces memdup_user_nul() into > > > a never-rebased branch and if security.git is willing to pull it and handle > > > that conversion in ima_write_policy() themselves, I'll be only glad to drop > > > the corresponding chunk in vfs.git#for-next > > > > As memdup_user_nul() is not in the security tree, it would break the > > security tree builds. Having the patch in the linux-integrity/next > > branch wouldn't help matters. > > I think Al intends for you to merge his "never-rebased branch" that > contains the memdup_user_nul patch into the integrity tree (or James to > merge it into the security tree). He will also merge the same branch > into his vfs tree and remove the patch that updates ima_write_policy() > to use memdup_user_nul() and you (or James) could apply that patch in > the integrity (or security) tree. > > This way we end up with the same commit creating memdup_user_nul() in > both trees and no left over conflicts. Thank you for the explanation. It sounds like a plan. James, are you ok with this? Mimi