Hi all,
Just adding a couple of more Cc's
On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 13:01:06 +1000 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in:
>
> arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig
> arch/s390/configs/defconfig
>
> between commit:
>
> 3361f3193c74 ("s390:
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
arch/s390/configs/performance_defconfig
between commit:
d1523a8f4b8b ("s390: replace defconfig with performance_defconfig")
from Linus' tree and commit:
99d5cadfde2b ("kexec_file: split KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG into
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
security/integrity/ima/Kconfig
between commit:
9e1e5d4372d6 ("x86/ima: fix the Kconfig dependency for IMA_ARCH_POLICY")
from Linus' tree and commit:
99d5cadfde2b ("kexec_file: split KEXEC_VERIFY_SIG into KEXEC_SIG
Hi all,
FIXME: Add owner of second tree to To:
Add author(s)/SOB of conflicting commits.
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in:
arch/s390/configs/debug_defconfig
arch/s390/configs/defconfig
between commit:
3361f3193c74 ("s390: update configs")
from
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
between commit:
715fa2fd4c6c ("tracing/kprobe: Check registered state using kprobe")
from Linus' tree and commit:
e87402c063fd ("lockdown: Lock down tracing and perf kprobes when in
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
security/yama/yama_lsm.c
between commit:
5413fcdbe9e7 ("Adding YAMA hooks also when YAMA is not stacked.")
from Linus' tree and commit:
730daa164e7c ("Yama: remove needless CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA_STACKED")
from
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in:
security/yama/yama_lsm.c
between commit:
5413fcdbe9e7 (Adding YAMA hooks also when YAMA is not stacked.)
from Linus' tree and commit:
730daa164e7c (Yama: remove needless CONFIG_SECURITY_YAMA_STACKED)
from the
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
lib/digsig.c between commit 7810cc1e7721 ("digsig: Fix memory leakage in
digsig_verify_rsa()") from Linus' tree and commit 26d438457ed1 ("digsig:
remove unnecessary memory allocation and copying") from the security tree.
I
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
lib/digsig.c between commit 7810cc1e7721 (digsig: Fix memory leakage in
digsig_verify_rsa()) from Linus' tree and commit 26d438457ed1 (digsig:
remove unnecessary memory allocation and copying) from the security tree.
I
Hi Mimi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:10:23 -0500 Mimi Zohar wrote:
>
> Sorry Stephen, the merged result should look like what's contained in
> linux-integrity/next-upstreamed-patches:
>
> int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
> {
> if (!file) {
> if ((ima_appraise &
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:12 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
> security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 ("ima:
> fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall") from
> Linus'
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 ("ima:
fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall") from
Linus' tree and commit 750943a30714 ("ima: remove enforce checking
duplication")
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 (ima:
fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall) from
Linus' tree and commit 750943a30714 (ima: remove enforce checking
duplication) from
On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 13:12 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c between commit a7f2a366f623 (ima:
fallback to MODULE_SIG_ENFORCE for existing kernel module syscall) from
Linus' tree and
Hi Mimi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:10:23 -0500 Mimi Zohar zo...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Sorry Stephen, the merged result should look like what's contained in
linux-integrity/next-upstreamed-patches:
int ima_module_check(struct file *file)
{
if (!file) {
if
Hi James,
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:41:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell
wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
> net/dns_resolver/dns_key.c between commit c6089735e724 ("userns: net:
> Call key_alloc with GLOBAL_ROOT_UID, GLOBAL_ROOT_GID instead of 0, 0")
> from Linus'
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
net/dns_resolver/dns_key.c between commit c6089735e724 ("userns: net:
Call key_alloc with GLOBAL_ROOT_UID, GLOBAL_ROOT_GID instead of 0, 0")
from Linus' tree and commit f8aa23a55f81 ("KEYS: Use keyring_alloc() to
create
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
security/keys/keyctl.c between commit 9a56c2db49e7 ("userns: Convert
security/keys to the new userns infrastructure") from Linus' tree and
commit 3a50597de863 ("KEYS: Make the session and process keyrings
per-thread") from
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in
security/keys/keyring.c and security/keys/process_keys.c between commit
9a56c2db49e7 ("userns: Convert security/keys to the new userns
infrastructure") from Linus' tree and commit 96b5c8fea6c0 ("KEYS: Reduce
initial
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got conflicts in
security/keys/keyring.c and security/keys/process_keys.c between commit
9a56c2db49e7 (userns: Convert security/keys to the new userns
infrastructure) from Linus' tree and commit 96b5c8fea6c0 (KEYS: Reduce
initial permissions
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
security/keys/keyctl.c between commit 9a56c2db49e7 (userns: Convert
security/keys to the new userns infrastructure) from Linus' tree and
commit 3a50597de863 (KEYS: Make the session and process keyrings
per-thread) from the
Hi James,
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
net/dns_resolver/dns_key.c between commit c6089735e724 (userns: net:
Call key_alloc with GLOBAL_ROOT_UID, GLOBAL_ROOT_GID instead of 0, 0)
from Linus' tree and commit f8aa23a55f81 (KEYS: Use keyring_alloc() to
create
Hi James,
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:41:57 +1100 Stephen Rothwell s...@canb.auug.org.au
wrote:
Today's linux-next merge of the security tree got a conflict in
net/dns_resolver/dns_key.c between commit c6089735e724 (userns: net:
Call key_alloc with GLOBAL_ROOT_UID, GLOBAL_ROOT_GID instead of 0,
23 matches
Mail list logo
