Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231027130320.69469330@canb.auug.org.au> <CAHC9VhQ+Nt7CrLxSZcOVNEtAypruOmM0ST0P0JJMrOq4XYmAkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4b4eb40c-b65a-46e2-9e23-5412a9cdcad0@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <4b4eb40c-b65a-46e2-9e23-5412a9cdcad0@canonical.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 12:52:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQbxJ4-z4Hp7CSmtcTNOWGFeQF2eEyct9=nHCMN_89YXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the apparmor tree with the security tree
To:     John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
Cc:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Oct 29, 2023 at 5:09=E2=80=AFPM John Johansen
<john.johansen@canonical.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/23 08:32, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:03=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auu=
g.org.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Today's linux-next merge of the apparmor tree got a conflict in:
> >>
> >>    security/apparmor/lsm.c
> >>
> >> between commit:
> >>
> >>    3c3bda37ca1d ("AppArmor: Add selfattr hooks")
> >>
> >> from the security tree and commits:
> >>
> >>    bd7bd201ca46 ("apparmor: combine common_audit_data and apparmor_aud=
it_data")
> >>    d20f5a1a6e79 ("apparmor: rename audit_data->label to audit_data->su=
bj_label")
> >>
> >> from the apparmor 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 tr=
ee
> >> is submitted for merging.  You may also want to consider cooperating
> >> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particular=
ly
> >> complex conflicts.
> >
> > Thanks Stephen.
> >
> > John, can you take a look and make sure this is correct (it looks okay =
to me)?
> >
> yes its good, thanks Stephan.
>
> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
>
> Paul just to double check, to make sure we get ordering on this right
>     3c3bda37ca1d ("AppArmor: Add selfattr hooks")
>
> is part of the Three basic syscalls series, the plan is still to have tha=
t
> series bake in next for a full cycle?

Yes, that's still the plan.  Once v6.7-rc1 is out I'll rebase the LSM
syscall patches and I expect the vast majority of these conflicts to
disappear, although I'm sure we'll pick up some new ones with the rest
of the v6.7-rcX cycle :)

--=20
paul-moore.com