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: <00961ef3fb41930a3304da935f1f73ebe386e83c.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 09:04:19 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.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 Wed, 2018-06-13 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > 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?
> > 
> > Sorry. No.  Merge conflicts are inherent in this system.
> 
> Yes, merge conflicts are inherent in this system when one makes a
> single change which impacts multiple subsystems, e.g. changing a core
> kernel function which is called by multiple subsystems.  However, that
> isn't what this patch does, it makes a number of self-contained
> changes across multiple subsystems; there are no cross-subsystem
> dependencies in this patch.  You are increasing the likelihood of
> conflicts for no good reason; that is why I'm asking you to split this
> patch and others like it.

No.  History shows with high certainty that splitting
patches like this across multiple subsystems of a primary
subsystem means that the entire patchset is not completely
applied.

It's _much_ simpler and provides a generic mechanism to
get the entire patch applied to send a single patch to the
top level subsystem maintainer.