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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:06:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   James Morris <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
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, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 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!

Agreed on both counts, and sorry for these problems.

James Morris

Powered by blists - more mailing lists