On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:31 PM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/alpha/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm/tools/syscall.tbl
> arch/arm64/include/asm/unistd32.h
> arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/microblaze/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n32.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_n64.tbl
> arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl
> arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/s390/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sh/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/sparc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl
> arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl
> arch/xtensa/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h
>
> between commit:
>
> 9fa5392c080e ("wire up syscalls for statmount/listmount")
>
> from the vfs-brauner tree and commit:
>
> 5f42375904b0 ("LSM: wireup Linux Security Module syscalls")
>
> 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.
Thanks Stephen.
--
paul-moore.com
