[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1711140758110.6276@localhost>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 07:58:45 +1100 (AEDT)
From: James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>
To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Kyle McMartin <kyle@...nel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"AKASHI, Takahiro" <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] fw_lockdown: new micro LSM module to prevent
loading unsigned firmware
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > -#define SECURITY_NAME_MAX 10
> > > > +#define SECURITY_NAME_MAX 15
> > >
> > > Should this small hunk be a separate atomic patch?
> >
> > I thought about it, but this is the first and only LSM with a larger
> > name.
>
> Maybe the commit log should mention that then.
Actually, make it a separate patch, so we can easily pinpoint the commit.
--
James Morris
<james.l.morris@...cle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists