On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 9:42 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
>
> security/security.c
>
> between commit:
>
> 5b52ad34f948 ("security: Constify sk in the sk_getsecid hook.")
>
> from the net-next tree and commit:
>
> bd1f5934e460 ("lsm: add comment block for security_sk_classify_flow LSM hook")
>
> from the security 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.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc security/security.c
> index 2dfc7b9f6ed9,9177fd0968bd..000000000000
> --- a/security/security.c
> +++ b/security/security.c
> @@@ -4396,7 -4421,14 +4421,14 @@@ void security_sk_clone(const struct soc
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_sk_clone);
>
> + /**
> + * security_sk_classify_flow() - Set a flow's secid based on socket
> + * @sk: original socket
> + * @flic: target flow
> + *
> + * Set the target flow's secid to socket's secid.
> + */
> -void security_sk_classify_flow(struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
> +void security_sk_classify_flow(const struct sock *sk, struct flowi_common *flic)
> {
> call_void_hook(sk_getsecid, sk, &flic->flowic_secid);
> }
Thanks Stephen, it's obviously a trivial fixup, but it looks correct to me.
--
paul-moore.com
