Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 20:18:39 -0700
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] seccomp: build fix for v5.0-rc2
Message-ID: <20190110031839.GD28330@cisco>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1901090803120.24546@namei.org>
 <CAGXu5j+wvi9t-oHf4cX999aYWMhmTJ1zA1mKuNQEB_n5ixiC5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190109065916.GA29753@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190109065916.GA29753@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 07:59:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > This was already picked up by x86-urgent...
> > 
> > -Kees
> 
> I'm fine with both routes - if Linus pulls this I'll zap the x86/urgent 
> one.

The patches are different actually. I've confirmed the one in
x86/urgent is correct, and this one is from the initial thread where I
was just guessing. The difference is HOSTCFLAGS vs. HOSTLDFLAGS for .o
files. So I think we should drop this and just keep the one in
x86/urgent.

Thanks,

Tycho