[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the selinux tree with the nfs tree
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 9:33 AM Trond Myklebust <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-17 at 13:31 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the selinux tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > fs/nfs/getroot.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > e8213ffc2aec ("NFS: Ensure security label is set for root inode")
> >
> > from the nfs tree and commit:
> >
> > 28d4d0e16f09 ("When using NFSv4.2, the security label for the root
> > inode should be set via a call to nfs_setsecurity() during the mount
> > process, otherwise the inode will appear as unlabeled for up to
> > acdirmin seconds. Currently the label for the root inode is
> > allocated, retrieved, and freed entirely witin
> > nfs4_proc_get_root().")
> >
> > from the selinux tree.
> >
> > These are basically the same patch with slight formatting
> > differences.
> >
> > I fixed it up (I used the latter) 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.
> >
> OK... Why is this being pushed through the selinux tree? Was that your
> intention Scott? Given that it didn't touch anything outside NFS and
> had been acked by the Selinux folks, but had not been acked by the NFS
> maintainers, I was assuming it was waiting to be applied here.

FYI, archive link below, but the short version is that the patch fixed
a problem seen with SELinux/labeled-NFS and after not hearing anything
from the NFS folks for over a week I went ahead and merged it into the
SELinux tree. With everything going on in the world at the moment I
didn't want this fix to get lost. I have no problem reverting the
patch in the SELinux -next branch if you guys would prefer to push
this up to Linus via the NFS tree; I just want to make sure we get
this fixed.

paul moore

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-17 14:49    [W:0.094 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site