Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the keys tree

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

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