On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:59 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Roberto, > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > > > > index d9d2636104db..f3d92bffd02f 100644 > > > > --- a/security/security.c > > > > +++ b/security/security.c > > > > @@ -2972,6 +2972,23 @@ int security_file_open(struct file *file) > > > > return fsnotify_perm(file, MAY_OPEN); <=== Conflict > > > > > > Replace with "return fsnotify_open_perm(file);" > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > The patch set doesn't apply cleaning to 6.8-rcX without this change. Unless > > > there are other issues, I can make the change. > > > > I take it this means you want to pull this via the IMA/EVM tree? > > Not sure about that, but I have enough changes to do to make a v10. Sorry, I should have been more clear, the point I was trying to resolve was who was going to take this patchset (eventually). There are other patches destined for the LSM tree that touch the LSM hooks in a way which will cause conflicts with this patchset, and if you/Mimi are going to take this via the IMA/EVM tree - which is fine with me - I need to take that into account when merging things in the LSM tree during this cycle. It's not a big deal either way, it would just be nice to get an answer on that within the next week. -- paul-moore.com
