Hi all,
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 17:18:18 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the pidfd tree got a conflict in:
>
> security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 2b4a2474a202 ("IMA: generalize keyring specific measurement constructs")
>
> from the integrity tree and commit:
>
> a2d2329e30e2 ("ima: handle idmapped mounts")
>
> from the pidfd tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) 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.
>
> diff --cc security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> index 1dd70dc68ffd,ed410efb3597..000000000000
> --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_api.c
> @@@ -183,17 -184,18 +184,18 @@@ err_out
> * Returns IMA_MEASURE, IMA_APPRAISE mask.
> *
> */
> - int ima_get_action(struct inode *inode, const struct cred *cred, u32 secid,
> - int mask, enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr,
> + int ima_get_action(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *inode,
> + const struct cred *cred, u32 secid, int mask,
> + enum ima_hooks func, int *pcr,
> struct ima_template_desc **template_desc,
> - const char *keyring)
> + const char *func_data)
> {
> int flags = IMA_MEASURE | IMA_AUDIT | IMA_APPRAISE | IMA_HASH;
>
> flags &= ima_policy_flag;
>
> - return ima_match_policy(inode, cred, secid, func, mask, flags, pcr,
> - template_desc, func_data);
> + return ima_match_policy(mnt_userns, inode, cred, secid, func, mask,
> - flags, pcr, template_desc, keyring);
> ++ flags, pcr, template_desc, func_data);
> }
>
> /*
With the merge window about to open, this is a reminder that this
conflict still exists.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgpvP1bENL5oH.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
