From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the vfs tree Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:55:12 +1100 Message-ID: <20160104125512.53a64cd2@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20151231152453.08cfae79@canb.auug.org.au> <1451871440.2772.16.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:34668 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751894AbcADBzO (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Jan 2016 20:55:14 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1451871440.2772.16.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mimi Zohar Cc: James Morris , Al Viro , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Petko Manolov Hi Mimi, On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 20:37:20 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote: > > FYI, I pushed out Petko's patch to linux-integrity/next earlier today. > His patch moves taking the ima_write_mutex to after the the call to > copy_from_user(), as discussed. This obviously won't fix the conflict > with Al's patch. How do you want to handle it? Do I need to do > anything? No, I will just do a different conflict resolution. I will send the usual email when I get to it. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au