Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the security tree with the mm tree

From: Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 09:30:48 +1000

Hi all,

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:28:22 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[email-masked]> 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.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell