[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJOGKAFrFF7HSPnqLpLz0no2Ae_z0TkWPeRt1WWqhqFOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:29:21 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
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 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?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists