From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Justin P. Mattock" Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security-testing tree with Linus' tree Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 16:24:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4BE34FA5.8070906@gmail.com> References: <20100506123049.082e98cc.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <7197.1273142988@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:36322 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751363Ab0EFXYI (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2010 19:24:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: James Morris Cc: David Howells , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Toshiyuki Okajima On 05/06/2010 04:10 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010, David Howells wrote: > >> >> Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> >>> I just used the version from Linus' tree. >> >> Okay. >> >> However, I'd like to NAK some bits of c5b60b5e67af8be4c58d3ffcc36894f69c4fbdc1 >> now that I see it... > > Will a patch -R of below be correct enough for you? Otherwise, please > send me a new patch. > > (This is one of the reasons why I'm not so keen on whitespace fixes, also > having to resolve merge conflicts, peturbing the history of the code etc.) > > >> >> @@ -1282,16 +1282,16 @@ long keyctl_session_to_parent(void) >> >> /* the parent must have the same effective ownership and mustn't be >> * SUID/SGID */ >> - if (pcred-> uid != mycred->euid || >> + if (pcred->uid != mycred->euid || >> pcred->euid != mycred->euid || >> pcred->suid != mycred->euid || >> - pcred-> gid != mycred->egid || >> + pcred->gid != mycred->egid || >> pcred->egid != mycred->egid || >> pcred->sgid != mycred->egid) >> goto not_permitted; >> >> /* the keyrings must have the same UID */ >> - if (pcred ->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid || >> + if (pcred->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid || >> mycred->tgcred->session_keyring->uid != mycred->euid) >> goto not_permitted; >> >> _Please_ don't do either of these. The whole point is to line stuff up so >> that as the eye scans down the lines, it can easily pick out the differences >> in stuff that's otherwise greatly repetitive. >> >> David >> > I never would of thought this. So the != has to be lined up so things don't break?! Justin P. Mattock