On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:12 PM Trond Myklebust
<trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 11:18 -0400, Scott Mayhew wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> OK. Well there doesn't seem to be anything else touching the NFS mount
> code in this dev cycle, so I don't expect any integration issues at
> this point. I'm therefore OK with it going through the selinux tree.
>
> I'll therefore drop the patch from the NFS tree, assuming you still
> have it in the selinux tree, Paul.
I was waiting to hear back from you before reverting, I'll go ahead
and leave it in the selinux/next tree. If anything changes on the NFS
side, let me know.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
