linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8

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 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]

Date:   Sun, 14 Jun 2020 12:20:30 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:12 PM Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> That said I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line for which kinds
> of changes really should be required to have bake time in -next. If
> you think this is one of those cases, we can hold off on this until we
> have some bake time for v5.9.

It's merged, but in general the rule for "bake in -next" should be
absolutely everything.

The only exception is just pure and plain fixes.

This SafeSetID change should in fact have been there for two different
reasons: not only was it a new feature rather than a fix (in
linux-next just for testing), it was one that crossed subsystem
borders (should be in linux-next just for cross-subsystem testing). It
touched files that very much aren't touched by just you.

"Looks obvious" has nothing to do with avoiding linux-next.

I suspect most of the bugs we have tend to be in code that "looked
obvious" to somebody.

                     Linus