On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 June 2015 at 12:27, Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linaro.org wrote:
On 6 June 2015 at 04:04, Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linaro.org wrote:
include/linux/security.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++----- security/commoncap.c | 2 +- security/security.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
We certainly want this in, but this area has been rather radically refactored recently. Can you rebase this patch against security-next?
Hi Kees,
I have rebased my patch series, but can not find your refactored code. Could you tell me the commit information? Thanks a lot!
It lives in security-next, but you could use linux-next too. This is what I see on a trivial patch attempt:
checking file include/linux/security.h Hunk #1 succeeded at 69 with fuzz 1 (offset -6 lines). Hunk #2 FAILED at 1353. Hunk #3 FAILED at 1483. Hunk #4 succeeded at 206 (offset -1584 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 463 (offset -1583 lines). 2 out of 5 hunks FAILED (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.) checking file security/commoncap.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 111 (offset -5 lines). (Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.) checking file security/security.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 213 with fuzz 2 (offset -11 lines).
See http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/ or maybe I misunderstood your question?
Thanks!
-Kees