linux-kernel - Re: VS: [PATCH] Smack: label for task objects (retry 2)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:40:46 +1100 (EST)
From:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To:	Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
cc:	ext-jarkko.2.sakkinen@...ia.com, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VS: [PATCH] Smack: label for task objects (retry 2)

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Eric Paris wrote:

> 2) If #1 is true and you want to get Sign-off's in your parent tree
> you can set up the child trees as a remote.  Then you can use:
> 
> git format-patch -k --stdout HEAD..remotes/[child]/[branch] | git am
> -3 -k --whitespace=fix -s

I don't think this is the right approach.  If you're pulling from a repo, 
then your signoff does not go on each patch because you trust the repo.

Otherwise, you should actually be reviewing each patch, which the above is 
not doing.

> Our tree is so simple I don't really understand why we need all this,
> but if we need it, lets figure out what works best for everyone!

Each LSM maintainer should probably be doing per-patch review of the 
patches going into their tree, and adding their signoff, while I will try 
and always just do pulls from those trees.

-- 
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/