[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZC2UF7FfJ1XDEu67@valentin-vidic.from.hr>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 17:30:31 +0200
From: Valentin Vidić <vvidic@...entin-vidic.from.hr>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Micah Morton <mortonm@...omium.org>,
Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] security, lsm: security_old_inode_init_security() Handle
multi LSM registration
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:28:11PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> I think backporting it to the stable kernels would be okay, but I'd
> prefer to let it get some more testing in linux-next first if that's
> okay with you. Since we are currently at v6.3-rc5 and this patch is
> scheduled to go up to Linus during the next merge window, it might
> make the most sense to give this two more weeks in -next, let it land
> in Linus' tree, and they ask the stable team for a backport ("Option
> 2" in the stable kernel docs):
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
>
> Thoughts?
No problem for me, as long as it gets included in the LTS at some point :)
--
Valentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists