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> <1d0b80d272a8e8c4a7b322d2d2bcc483d9e41a28.camel@btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d0b80d272a8e8c4a7b322d2d2bcc483d9e41a28.camel@btinternet.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:02:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTu+SjtOx0ZZeNHkUNTrkTHtetQapqGodEkRKM=hEqFLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree
To:     David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc:     Richard Haines <richard_c_haines@btinternet.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 7:03 AM Richard Haines
<richard_c_haines@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 10:35 +1100, Stephen Rothwell 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I think 87b14da5b76a ("security/selinux: Add support for new key
> permissions") should be revoked and resubmitted via selinux as it was
> never ack'ed there and produced before 7470d0d13fb6 ("selinux: allow
> kernfs symlinks to inherit parent directory context"), that has been
> ack'ed.
>
> Because of this the policy capability ids are out of sync with what has
> been committed in userspace libsepol.
>
> Plus as Paul mentioned there is an outstanding query on the permission
> loop that David needs to answer.

David, I see that this patch is still getting pulled into linux-next,
could you please revert it from your keys tree?

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com