[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190925143204.GE19638@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:32:04 +0300
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
nhorman@...hat.com, npmccallum@...hat.com,
"Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
"Katz-zamir, Shay" <shay.katz-zamir@...el.com>,
"Huang, Haitao" <haitao.huang@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Svahn, Kai" <kai.svahn@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
"Xing, Cedric" <cedric.xing@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 00/24] Intel SGX foundations
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:20:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > I think either can be considered post-upstreaming.
>
> Indeed, as long as the overall API is actually compatible with these
> types of restrictions.
I include LSM changes to the follow up versions of the patch set. This
is done to help verify that the API is compatible (or make it easy to
review).
I think they should be merged only after SGX is in the upstream beause
this will make testing and reviewing smaller details of the changes less
edgy the for LSM maintainers when one can just grab the LSM changes and
try them out with the mainline.
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists