public inbox for linux-next@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat•com>, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical•com>
Cc: Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
	YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei•com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the keys tree with the ecryptfs tree
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:10:34 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190709101034.0dd2cc1e@canb.auug.org.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190626142838.0f9bb5d6@canb.auug.org.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1861 bytes --]

Hi all,

On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:28:38 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> 
> Today's linux-next merge of the keys tree got a conflict in:
> 
>   fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> 
> between commit:
> 
>   29a51df0609c ("ecryptfs: remove unnessesary null check in ecryptfs_keyring_auth_tok_for_sig")
> 
> from the ecryptfs tree and commit:
> 
>   79512db59dc8 ("keys: Replace uid/gid/perm permissions checking with an ACL")
> 
> from the keys 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.
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
> 
> diff --cc fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> index 216fbe6a4837,ba382f135918..000000000000
> --- a/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> +++ b/fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c
> @@@ -1611,10 -1610,10 +1611,10 @@@ int ecryptfs_keyring_auth_tok_for_sig(s
>   {
>   	int rc = 0;
>   
> - 	(*auth_tok_key) = request_key(&key_type_user, sig, NULL);
> + 	(*auth_tok_key) = request_key(&key_type_user, sig, NULL, NULL);
>  -	if (!(*auth_tok_key) || IS_ERR(*auth_tok_key)) {
>  +	if (IS_ERR(*auth_tok_key)) {
>   		(*auth_tok_key) = ecryptfs_get_encrypted_key(sig);
>  -		if (!(*auth_tok_key) || IS_ERR(*auth_tok_key)) {
>  +		if (IS_ERR(*auth_tok_key)) {
>   			printk(KERN_ERR "Could not find key with description: [%s]\n",
>   			      sig);
>   			rc = process_request_key_err(PTR_ERR(*auth_tok_key));

I am still getting this conflict (the commit ids may have changed).
Just a reminder in case you think Linus may need to know.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

      reply	other threads:[~2019-07-09  0:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-26  4:28 linux-next: manual merge of the keys tree with the ecryptfs tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-07-09  0:10 ` Stephen Rothwell [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190709101034.0dd2cc1e@canb.auug.org.au \
    --to=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat$(echo .)com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=tyhicks@canonical$(echo .)com \
    --cc=yuehaibing@huawei$(echo .)com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox