linux-kernel - Re: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions

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

Message-ID: <9ae2397b-ad11-d437-d0f4-4e4f0dff4ce9@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:29:31 -0700
From:   John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Dmitry Kasatkin <dmitry.kasatkin@...il.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>,
        Kentaro Takeda <takedakn@...data.co.jp>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...ho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions

On 06/12/2018 02:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to break this up by security module I would take
>>> the Smack part as soon as James does the tree update. If James
>>> wants to take the whole thing at once you can add my:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
>>>
>>> for the Smack changes.
>>
>> It's probably simplest for me to take them as one patch.
> 
> I would prefer if the SELinux changes were split into a separate
> patch.  I'm guessing John would probably want the same for the
> AppArmor patches, but take his work for it, not mine.

yes that would be preferred

> 
> Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these
> patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first
> one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during
> the merge window.  Could you split your patches up from now on please?
> 

yeah splitting patches at subsystem boundaries is highly recommended.