Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231120143106.3f8faedd@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20231120143106.3f8faedd@canb.auug.org.au>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:09:40 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhR4u7tzzBd6ZB=Kcj1vGCcX2VhsyjPQAoLP3C75BehWfg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the
 vfs-brauner tree
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:31=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.or=
g.au> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in:
>
>   arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
>   arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
>   arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
>   arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
>   arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
>   arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
>   arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
>   include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
>
> between commit:
>
>   9fa5392c080e ("wire up syscalls for statmount/listmount")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
>   5f42375904b0 ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls")
>
> from the security 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.

Thanks Stephen.

--=20
paul-moore.com