[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99FC4B6EFCEFD44486C35F4C281DC6731F330ED1@ORSMSX107.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:21:21 +0000
From: "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>
To: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "Reshetova, Elena"
<elena.reshetova@...el.com>
CC: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>, David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [kees:kspp/hardened-atomic 3/14]
kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c:299:2: error: unknown type name 'local_wrap_t'
> -----Original Message-----
> From: keescook@...gle.com [mailto:keescook@...gle.com] On Behalf Of
> Kees Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:01 PM
> To: Reshetova, Elena <elena.reshetova@...el.com>; kernel-
> hardening@...ts.openwall.com
> Cc: Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>; David Windsor
> <dwindsor@...il.com>
> Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [kees:kspp/hardened-atomic 3/14]
> kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c:299:2: error: unknown type name 'local_wrap_t'
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reshetova, Elena
> <elena.reshetova@...el.com> wrote:
> >>I pulled in the RFC v2, and since it was based on a prior -next, I ended up
> choosing 4.9-rc2 to base it on since it had fewer conflicts.
> >
> > I guess I need to do a rebase. Do we still want to keep it on top of next?
>
> I defer to your preference, though -next is a moving target, so at
> some point here we'll need to just base it on Linus's tree, but that
> might make some merges more difficult.
>
> What do other folks find easier to test with?
I work off James Morris' security-next, which usually gets set at rc2.
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
> Nexus Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
