[Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>]
On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 12:02 +0800, xiujianfeng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023/1/30 0:15, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> >> @@ -254,15 +264,9 @@ static int evm_calc_hmac_or_hash(struct dentry *dentry,
> >> if (is_ima)
> >> ima_present = true;
> >>
> >> - if (req_xattr_value_len < 64)
> >> - pr_debug("%s: (%zu) [%*phN]\n", req_xattr_name,
> >> - req_xattr_value_len,
> >> - (int)req_xattr_value_len,
> >> - req_xattr_value);
> >> - else
> >> - dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
> >> - req_xattr_value,
> >> - req_xattr_value_len);
> >> + dump_security_xattr(req_xattr_name,
> >> + req_xattr_value,
> >> + req_xattr_value_len);
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >> size = vfs_getxattr_alloc(&nop_mnt_idmap, dentry, xattr->name,
> >
> > Hm, this patch doesn't apply properly.
>
> I noticed that the patch fails to apply on linux master, however this
> patch is meant for linux-next, would you please maybe have a look?
I wasn't aware of the change. However, merge conflicts should not be
"fixed", but mentioned immediately after the patch break line ("---") .
FYI, this merge conflict is a result of commit 4609e1f18e19 ("fs: port
->permission() to pass mnt_idmap").
Patches for the linux-integrity branch should be based on the next-
integrity branch.
--
thanks,
Mimi
