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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200212103548.266f81fd@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20200212103548.266f81fd@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 21:03:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQa1oXQ6duzUYrUq1NVdJKqo=wgorAgkHdGxTz_eNKeJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@btinternet.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_G=C3=B6ttsche?= <cgzones@googlemail.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 6:35 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got conflicts in:
>
>   security/selinux/include/security.h
>   security/selinux/ss/services.c
>
> between commit:
>
>   87b14da5b76a ("security/selinux: Add support for new key permissions")
>
> from the keys tree and commit:
>
>   7470d0d13fb6 ("selinux: allow kernfs symlinks to inherit parent directory context")
>
> from the selinux tree.

Thanks for bringing this up Stephen, I wasn't aware that patch had hit
the keys tree.

Unless I missed a message in the SELinux mailing list thread regarding
the "security/selinux: Add support for new key permissions" patch, I
thought there were some outstanding questions (well, just a single big
one I guess) that needed to be resolved before this could go upstream;
did you put this in the keys tree David just for some additional
testing, or because you wanted to send it up to Linus via your tree?

If the latter, I would really prefer if this goes to Linus via SELinux
tree as it conflicts with some SELinux ABI changes and I would rather
we handle that in the SELinux tree instead of having to send manual
merge instructions up to Linus during the next merge window.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com