On Tue, 17 Mar 2020, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 13:31 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/nfs/getroot.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e8213ffc2aec ("NFS: Ensure security label is set for root inode")
> >
> > from the nfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 28d4d0e16f09 ("When using NFSv4.2, the security label for the root
> > inode should be set via a call to nfs_setsecurity() during the mount
> > process, otherwise the inode will appear as unlabeled for up to
> > acdirmin seconds. Currently the label for the root inode is
> > allocated, retrieved, and freed entirely witin
> > nfs4_proc_get_root().")
> >
> > from the selinux tree.
> >
> > These are basically the same patch with slight formatting
> > differences.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter) 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.
> >
> OK... Why is this being pushed through the selinux tree? Was that your
> intention Scott?
Not really... I addressed the patch to you and Anna, after all. On the
other hand, I didn't object when Paul picked up the patch in his tree.
I'm guessing I should have spoken up. Sorry about that.
-Scott
> Given that it didn't touch anything outside NFS and
> had been acked by the Selinux folks, but had not been acked by the NFS
> maintainers, I was assuming it was waiting to be applied here.
>
> --
> Trond Myklebust
> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
> trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
