On Tue 17-09-24 09:30:48, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:28:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in:
> >
> > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > security/security.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 3346ada04cf5 ("bcachefs: do not use PF_MEMALLOC_NORECLAIM")
> >
> > from the mm-unstable branch of the mm tree and commit:
> >
> > 711f5c5ce6c2 ("lsm: cleanup lsm_hooks.h")
> >
> > from the security tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter version ofinclude/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > and 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 3581262da5ee,4564a0a1e4ef..000000000000
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@@ -660,7 -745,7 +745,7 @@@ static int lsm_file_alloc(struct file *
> > *
> > * Returns 0, or -ENOMEM if memory can't be allocated.
> > */
> > - int lsm_inode_alloc(struct inode *inode, gfp_t gfp)
> > -static int lsm_inode_alloc(struct inode *inode)
> > ++static int lsm_inode_alloc(struct inode *inode, gfp_t gfp)
> > {
> > if (!lsm_inode_cache) {
> > inode->i_security = NULL;
>
> This is now a conflict between the mm tree and Linus' tree.
Andrew said he would drop the mm patches and I will resubmit when merge
window closes.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
