From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753966AbcADMcy (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 07:32:54 -0500 Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com ([125.16.236.7]:53702 "EHLO e28smtp07.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753665AbcADMcs (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2016 07:32:48 -0500 X-IBM-Helo: d28dlp02.in.ibm.com X-IBM-MailFrom: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com X-IBM-RcptTo: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;linux-next@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1451910748.2772.35.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the integrity tree with the vfs tree From: Mimi Zohar To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Al Viro , Dmitry Kasatkin , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Petko Manolov , James Morris Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:32:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160104162308.52349acd@canb.auug.org.au> 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 (3.12.11-1.fc21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16010412-0025-0000-0000-00000908124A Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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