linux-kernel - Re: Module stacking next steps

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]

Message-ID: <554245E6.9000004@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:10:30 -0700
From:	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
CC:	Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Kees Cook <kees@...flux.net>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: Module stacking next steps

On 4/30/2015 7:48 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as 
>>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>>
>>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>>
>>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>>> this land.
>>>
>>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
>> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
> Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
> be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
> Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
> hate to have to do it more often than I have to.

Whoops! I read mail addressed directly to me before I read what goes
just to lists. I see that security-next is updated. I will have the update
ready as quickly as possible. Thank you.

--
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/