On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:59 AM Roberto Sassu
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Roberto,
> > >
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > > index d9d2636104db..f3d92bffd02f 100644
> > > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > > @@ -2972,6 +2972,23 @@ int security_file_open(struct file *file)
> > > > return fsnotify_perm(file, MAY_OPEN); <=== Conflict
> > >
> > > Replace with "return fsnotify_open_perm(file);"
> > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > The patch set doesn't apply cleaning to 6.8-rcX without this change. Unless
> > > there are other issues, I can make the change.
> >
> > I take it this means you want to pull this via the IMA/EVM tree?
>
> Not sure about that, but I have enough changes to do to make a v10.
Sorry, I should have been more clear, the point I was trying to
resolve was who was going to take this patchset (eventually). There
are other patches destined for the LSM tree that touch the LSM hooks
in a way which will cause conflicts with this patchset, and if
you/Mimi are going to take this via the IMA/EVM tree - which is fine
with me - I need to take that into account when merging things in the
LSM tree during this cycle. It's not a big deal either way, it would
just be nice to get an answer on that within the next week.
--
paul-moore.com