| Message ID | 20190813192126.122370-1-matthewgarrett@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | lockdown fixups | expand |
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Fixups for the lockdown patchset. Potentially makes more sense to merge > these into the relevant original patches rather than keeping them > separate, but sending them for review. Yep, it's difficult to guess which Linus would prefer, as this is also public development history now.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Fixups for the lockdown patchset. Potentially makes more sense to merge > these into the relevant original patches rather than keeping them > separate, but sending them for review. Which kernel version are these against? kernel/kexec_file.c: In function ‘kimage_validate_signature’: kernel/kexec_file.c:220:4: error: label ‘out’ used but not defined 220 | goto out; | ^~~~ kernel/kexec_file.c: In function ‘kimage_file_prepare_segments’: kernel/kexec_file.c:295:3: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ima_kexec_cmdline’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] 295 | ima_kexec_cmdline(image->cmdline_buf, | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cc1: some warnings being treated as errors My next-lockdown branch is based on v5.2.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:06 PM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> Which kernel version are these against?
Crap. Sorry, these ended up derived from HEAD. Let me fix that up and
resend. Sorry about that!
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:06 PM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > Which kernel version are these against? > > Crap. Sorry, these ended up derived from HEAD. Let me fix that up and > resend. Sorry about that! Do you have an upstream dependency on Mimi's code in -rc? If so, just tell me which commit it is and I'll find the next good merge point.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:24 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:06 PM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > > > Which kernel version are these against? > > > > Crap. Sorry, these ended up derived from HEAD. Let me fix that up and > > resend. Sorry about that! > > Do you have an upstream dependency on Mimi's code in -rc? No, there's no dependency, I just ended up with an additional hunk when rebasing.