linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/38] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

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: <2cd724a9-3735-1be3-4a42-facb264e70dc@schaufler-ca.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:37:41 -0800
From:   Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/38] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock

On 1/8/2019 1:05 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2019, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> wrote:
>>>>>> v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command
>>>>>>     line interface. Stacking is not conditional.
>>>>> Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc?
>>>>>
>>>>> Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward?
>>>> If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21.
>>> Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.)
>> I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed
>> fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1?
> Yep, please send a new pull request.

Do you want it as is or rebased on 5.0-rc1?