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:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:18:29 -0400
From:   Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com>
Cc:     "sfr@canb.auug.org.au" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        "paul@paul-moore.com" <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the nfs tree
Message-ID: <20200317151829.GA4442@aion.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <20200317133117.4569cc6a@canb.auug.org.au>
 <bb623275e936c026cc425904e6c1cee0cbe85f28.camel@hammerspace.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bb623275e936c026cc425904e6c1cee0cbe85f28.camel@hammerspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Trond Myklebust wrote:

> On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 13:31 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
> > 
> >   fs/nfs/getroot.c
> > 
> > between commit:
> > 
> >   e8213ffc2aec ("NFS: Ensure security label is set for root inode")
> > 
> > from the nfs tree and commit:
> > 
> >   28d4d0e16f09 ("When using NFSv4.2, the security label for the root
> > inode should be set via a call to nfs_setsecurity() during the mount
> > process, otherwise the inode will appear as unlabeled for up to
> > acdirmin seconds.  Currently the label for the root inode is
> > allocated, retrieved, and freed entirely witin
> > nfs4_proc_get_root().")
> > 
> > from the selinux tree.
> > 
> > These are basically the same patch with slight formatting
> > differences.
> > 
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter) 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.
> > 
> OK... Why is this being pushed through the selinux tree? Was that your
> intention Scott?

Not really... I addressed the patch to you and Anna, after all.  On the
other hand, I didn't object when Paul picked up the patch in his tree.
I'm guessing I should have spoken up.  Sorry about that.

-Scott

> Given that it didn't touch anything outside NFS and
> had been acked by the Selinux folks, but had not been acked by the NFS
> maintainers, I was assuming it was waiting to be applied here.
> 
> -- 
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
> 
>