linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] SELinux patches for v5.16

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: <CAHk-=whvZRaJSXirjcWKn75H-2H1tc54cru8p-vXE_2UyuvGNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:55:03 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     SElinux list <selinux@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SELinux patches for v5.16

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:13 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> I felt I addressed that in the pull request cover letter, although it
> appears not in a way that you found adequate.

Yeah, it's actually quite adequate, but I wasn't seeing it.

Going back, I see that

  "The additional audit callouts and LSM hooks were done in
conjunction with the io-uring folks, based on conversations and RFC
patches earlier in the year"

So yeah, it was there, and I missed it. My bad.

It would have been good to have a link to said discussions in the
commits, or even just a "cc:" or whatever so that I see that the
proper people were aware of it.

Partly just for posterity, partly simply because that's actually what
I look at when doing conflict resolution.

I do obviously go back to the original email later to see if you then
had an example resolution (which I'll then compare against what I did
to see that I didn't miss anything), and to complete the commit
message. But in this case I didn't even get past the conflict when I
started going "but but but.."

> I felt the comment in the pull request was sufficient, however based
> on your response it clearly isn't.  Would you like me to edit the
> commits to add various discussion tags, is this follow-up sufficient,
> or would you like me to do something else?

This follow-up was sufficient. In fact, the original should have been
sufficient for me.

I just need to feel like I know that toes haven't been stepped on, and
that I don't have to fight a merge later..

             Linus