Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJ-EccOQxDjSgUL0AsCywoKDbOUNWDyxCKHQc+s6+ZemUh9Uzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wg3kHxMP67XmQyCg7J+KfFgAsQqj1goUa3dKR-A812ZbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wg3kHxMP67XmQyCg7J+KfFgAsQqj1goUa3dKR-A812ZbA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
Date:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 17:01:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ-EccPLAD5TGg=KQ-m54ymrVdd++Dg7A_UR+v535iOVRsDe4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID changes for v5.10
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 4:06 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> These were rebased since the merge window started, for no apparent reason.
>
> Were they in linux-next?

Yeah, they are changes that were originally targeting the v5.9 merge
window (and thus were in -next during July/August) but I didn't get
the chance to send a pull request for them. Since I didn't touch my
-next branch since then they are also in 'next-20201013' and
'next-20201015'.

I just rebased to v5.9 to make sure the 1-line changes that touch
kernel/capability.c, kernel/groups.c and kernel/sys.c still applied
cleanly without conflicts. Should I have rebased onto one of the -rc's
for v5.9 instead?

>
> And if so, why was I sent some different version?
>
>              Linus