Hi Stephen, On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 17:02 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 07:47 -0500, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > Hi - > > > > Before upstreaming "ima: re-introduce own integrity cache lock", I've > > pushed the following patches to the next-queued-testing branch for > > testing. We'll resync with the linux-security tree based on -rc3, > > hopefully next week. > > > > d79d361c25d7 ima: re-introduce own integrity cache lock > > 4e94bcf160f2 ima: support new "hash" and "dont_hash" policy actions > > bd1fa1e14733 ima: Fix line continuation format > > cf46932b9a02 ima: pass filename to ima_rdwr_violation_check() > > 4aad0b3845e4 ima: log message to module appraisal error > > We're now sync'ed with the security tree next-general branch. There > are a few differences, nothing major, between the "next-queued- > testing" branch and the "next-integrity" branch. > > For those posting IMA/EVM patches, please base them on the > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/zohar/linux-integrity.git next-integrity > branch. > > Sorry for any inconveniences this might have caused. As the integrity subsystem is now back in sync with the security tree, I'd really appreciate if you could include the integrity tree in linux-next. Instead of including the integrity "next" branch as previously, could you include the "next-integrity" branch instead? thanks! 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
