On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Daniel Jurgens [off-list ref] wrote:

On 5/19/2017 7:49 AM, Dan Jurgens wrote:

quoted

From: Daniel Jurgens <redacted>

Note on v7, it applies cleanly on Paul Moores' tree.  'git am' fails to
apply patch 0002* to Dougs' tree, but 'patch' applies it without rejects.
There's a new file that needs to be added before resolving the git am,
drivers/infiniband/core/security.c

There's actually a trivial merge conflict in drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs.c that doesn't cause patch to create a reject file, in the function create_qp a my patch adds a "goto err_destroy;".  In Dougs' tree it needs to be changed to "goto err_cb".

Thanks for the rebase Daniel.  Aside from the small problems with LSM
hook init code that I already mentioned it looks good to me.

Considering that we got an ACK from the IB folks on v6 of your
patchset I went ahead and merged it into the selinux/next tree.  I do
reserve the right to yank it out before the next merge window if we
discover any problems with the userspace, policy, or tests, but I
think those are moving along nicely at the moment.

Doug, and other IB folks, can I get an explicit ACK on this rebased
patchset from Daniel?  I don't like sending cross-subsystem changes
this large upstream without the associated ACKs.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html