From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the vfs tree Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 04:10:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20181218041001.GU2217@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20181218144858.58d8d1f8@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181218144858.58d8d1f8@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Paul Moore , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ondrej Mosnacek List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 02:48:58PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in: > > security/selinux/hooks.c > > between commit: > > 2b8073b14c19 ("LSM: split ->sb_set_mnt_opts() out of ->sb_kern_mount()") > > from the vfs tree and commit: > > 2cbdcb882f97 ("selinux: always allow mounting submounts") > > from the selinux tree. > > I fixed it up (I used the vfs tree version, plus added the following > patch but I am not sure if it is correct as the latter patch only affected > selinux) 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. > - if (!(fc->sb_flags & MS_KERNMOUNT)) { > + if (!(fc->sb_flags & (MS_KERNMOUNT | MS_SUBMOUNT))) { It is correct, but the long-term fix is to lift the conditional part out of vfs_get_tree() into the callers (as discussed a couple of weeks ago). I have it in a local branch, need to ripple it into the current main series...