[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CZYFR8LEEQB1.8C0J9KCTF8CB@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:31:21 +0200
From: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: "Jarkko Sakkinen" <jarkko@...nel.org>, "Paul Moore"
<paul@...l-moore.com>, "Fan Wu" <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>,
<corbet@....net>, <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>, <jmorris@...ei.org>,
<serge@...lyn.com>, <tytso@....edu>, <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
<axboe@...nel.dk>, <agk@...hat.com>, <snitzer@...nel.org>,
<eparis@...hat.com>
Cc: <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <fsverity@...ts.linux.dev>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev>,
<audit@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v15 12/21] security: add
security_bdev_setintegrity() hook
On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:28 AM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 1:00 AM EET, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2024 Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch introduces a new hook to save block device's integrity
> > > data. For example, for dm-verity, LSMs can use this hook to save
> > > the roothash signature of a dm-verity into the security blob,
> > > and LSMs can make access decisions based on the data inside
> > > the signature, like the signer certificate.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > --
> > > v1-v14:
> > > + Not present
> > >
> > > v15:
> > > + Introduced
> > >
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 2 ++
> > > include/linux/security.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > security/security.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> >
> > I'm not sure why you made this a separate patch, help? If there is
> > no significant reason why this is separate, please squash it together
> > with patch 11/21.
>
> Off-topic: it is weird to have *RFC* patch set at v15.
>
> RFC by de-facto is something that can be safely ignored if you don't
> have bandwidth. 15 versions of anything that can be safely ignored
> is by definition spamming :-) I mean just conceptually.
>
> So does the RFC still hold or what the heck is going on with this one?
>
> Haven't followed for some time now...
I mean if this RFC trend continues I'll just put auto-filter for this
thread to put straight to the bin. There's enough non-RFC patch sets
to review.
BR, Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists