On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 16:23 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Mimi, > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:06:37 -0500 Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 03:16 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > > > > > > FWIW, I'm going to pull the part that introduces memdup_user_nul() into > > > a never-rebased branch and if security.git is willing to pull it and handle > > > that conversion in ima_write_policy() themselves, I'll be only glad to drop > > > the corresponding chunk in vfs.git#for-next > > > > As memdup_user_nul() is not in the security tree, it would break the > > security tree builds. Having the patch in the linux-integrity/next > > branch wouldn't help matters. > > I think Al intends for you to merge his "never-rebased branch" that > contains the memdup_user_nul patch into the integrity tree (or James to > merge it into the security tree). He will also merge the same branch > into his vfs tree and remove the patch that updates ima_write_policy() > to use memdup_user_nul() and you (or James) could apply that patch in > the integrity (or security) tree. > > This way we end up with the same commit creating memdup_user_nul() in > both trees and no left over conflicts. Thank you for the explanation. It sounds like a plan. James, are you ok with this? Mimi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
