linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] selinux: fix SCTP client peeloff socket labeling

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]

Date:   Sun, 7 Nov 2021 19:41:47 -0500
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     omosnace@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        lucien.xin@...il.com, richard_c_haines@...nternet.com,
        vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com,
        marcelo.leitner@...il.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] selinux: fix SCTP client peeloff socket labeling

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:10 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 09:12:57 -0500
> > When we change things as significantly as we are doing here, i.e.
> > shifting some of the labeling away from the endpoint to the
> > association, I much rather we do it as a chunk/patchset so that we can
> > review it in a consistent manner.  Some of that has gone out the door
> > here because of what I view as recklessness on the part of the netdev
> > folks, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon all order.  Let's get
> > all the fixes and repairs queued up in a single patchset so that we
> > can fully see what the end result of these changes are going to look
> > like.  Further, I think it would be good if at least one of the
> > patches has a very clear explanation in the commit description (not
> > the cover letter, I want to see this in the git log) of what happens
>
> Cover letters show up in the merge commit log message for the patch
> series so they show up in the git commit log.

That assumes the patch(set) is merged and not applied directly from
email, patchwork, etc.  I try not to make too many assumptions about
how patches end up in various trees as everyone/every-tree is a bit
different; including the details in a commit description has been the
safest route in my experience.  Regardless, the key is that info gets
into the git log in a way that is easily discoverable, the exact
mechanism is less important as far as I'm concerned.

> Paul, please stop being so difficult and let's fix this.

David, please look at the associated threads and see that we *are*
working on fixing this; no one likes broken code, we all want this
fixed.  As far as being difficult is concerned, I can assure that from
my perspective the individual who merged a patchset in less than 24
hours (during the initial days of the merge window) without an ACK
from the affected maintainers and then refused to revert the patches
when asked is the difficult party, but I guess we all have our
different opinions.

Best wishes and warmest regards.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com