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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:02:29 +0200
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     James Morris <>
Cc:     John Johansen <>,
        James Bottomley <>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <>,
        Vlastimil Babka <>,
        Seth Arnold <>,
        linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: regression in 4.14-rc2 caused by apparmor: add base infastructure
 for socket mediation

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:54 PM, James Morris <> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> I'm *very* unhappy with the security layer as is
> What are you unhappy with?

We had two big _fundamental_ problems this merge window:

 - untested code that clearly didn't do what it claimed it did, and
which caused me to not even accept the main pull request

 - apparmor code that had a regression, where it took three weeks for
that regression to be escalated to me simply because the developer was
denying the regression.

Tell me why I *shouldn't* be unhappy with the security layer?

I shouldn't be in the situation where I start reviewing the code and
go "that can't be right".

And I *definitely* shouldn't be in the situation where I need to come
in three weeks later and tell people what a regression is!


Powered by blists - more mailing lists