From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Morris Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:43:56 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20080707225130.ca52d527.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from namei.org ([69.55.235.186]:60904 "EHLO us.intercode.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753426AbYGGOof (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Jul 2008 10:44:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080707225130.ca52d527.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Eric Paris , Stephen Smalley , Paul Moore , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in > fs/proc/task_mmu.c between commit > 5d7e0d2bd98ef4f5a16ac9da1987ae655368dd6a ("Fix pagemap_read() use of > struct mm_walk") from Linus' tree and commit > ca9b1a1413bac6ea5e5c8cb81044a39bdb3b4bc8 ("Security: split proc ptrace > checking into read vs. attach") from the selinux tree. > > The former removed some of the code that the latter changed. It is > probably worth a check on the code in pagemap_read to make sure I got it > right. I couldn't locate your updated version, but have resolved it in my own tree (which is being rebased). One thing we need to understand is why there were two separate ptrace_may_attach() calls in the earlier version of pagemap_read(). - James -- James Morris