2023-08-01 03:21:30

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the net-next tree

---

Hi all,

Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:

security/security.c

between commit:

5b52ad34f948 ("security: Constify sk in the sk_getsecid hook.")

from the net-next tree and commit:

bd1f5934e460 ("lsm: add comment block for security_sk_classify_flow LSM hook")

from the security tree.

I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
complex conflicts.

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

diff --cc security/security.c
index 2dfc7b9f6ed9,9177fd0968bd..000000000000
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@@ -4396,7 -4421,14 +4421,14 @@@ void security_sk_clone(const struct soc
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_clone);

+ /**
+ * security_sk_classify_flow() - Set a flow's secid based on socket
+ * @sk: original socket
+ * @flic: target flow
+ *
+ * Set the target flow's secid to socket's secid.
+ */
-void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
+void security_sk_classify_flow(const struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
{
call_void_hook(sk_getsecid, sk, &flic->flowic_secid);
}

---

Attachments:

(No filename) (499.00 B)
OpenPGP digital signature

2023-08-01 19:08:55

by Paul Moore

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the net-next tree

---

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:42 PM Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
> security/security.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5b52ad34f948 ("security: Constify sk in the sk_getsecid hook.")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
> bd1f5934e460 ("lsm: add comment block for security_sk_classify_flow LSM hook")
>
> from the security tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc security/security.c
> index 2dfc7b9f6ed9,9177fd0968bd..000000000000
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@@ -4396,7 -4421,14 +4421,14 @@@ void security_sk_clone(const struct soc
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_clone);
>
> + /**
> + * security_sk_classify_flow() - Set a flow's secid based on socket
> + * @sk: original socket
> + * @flic: target flow
> + *
> + * Set the target flow's secid to socket's secid.
> + */
> -void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
> +void security_sk_classify_flow(const struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
> {
> call_void_hook(sk_getsecid, sk, &flic->flowic_secid);
> }

Thanks Stephen, it's obviously a trivial fixup, but it looks correct to me.

--
paul-moore.com