[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSU_sqMQwdoh0nAFdURqs_cVFbva8=otjcZUo8s+xyC9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:13:39 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederick Lawler <fred@...udflare.com>, kpsingh@...nel.org,
revest@...omium.org, jackmanb@...omium.org, ast@...nel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org, kafai@...com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, serge@...lyn.com,
stephen.smalley.work@...il.com, eparis@...isplace.org,
shuah@...nel.org, brauner@...nel.org, casey@...aufler-ca.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...udflare.com, cgzones@...glemail.com,
karl@...badwolfsecurity.com, tixxdz@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 3:58 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
>
> > At the end of the v4 patchset I suggested merging this into lsm/next
> > so it could get a full -rc cycle in linux-next, assuming no issues
> > were uncovered during testing
>
> What in the world can be uncovered in linux-next for code that has no in
> tree users.
The patchset provides both BPF LSM and SELinux implementations of the
hooks along with a BPF LSM test under tools/testing/selftests/bpf/.
If no one beats me to it, I plan to work on adding a test to the
selinux-testsuite as soon as I'm done dealing with other urgent
LSM/SELinux issues (io_uring CMD passthrough, SCTP problems, etc.); I
run these tests multiple times a week (multiple times a day sometimes)
against the -rcX kernels with the lsm/next, selinux/next, and
audit/next branches applied on top. I know others do similar things.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists