[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRdQAoiKMVVUiDyCbEd4EDL9ppH3V4xRGhoOoFmHFy8nQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 10:24:30 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tomoyo-dev-en@...ts.osdn.me,
tomoyo-users-en@...ts.osdn.me, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LSM: allow loadable kernel module based LSM modules
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 3:43 AM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2024/09/04 23:23, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 3:10 AM Tetsuo Handa
> > <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
...
> If you ignore my concern, I have to NACK the static call changes you are
> going to send in the upcoming merge window.
I'm not ignoring your concern, I've responded to your emails and
patches on the topic over, and over, and over, and over again by
trying to explain to you that your goal of supporting out-of-tree LSMs
regardless of the impact to the upstream LSM effort is not something
that is acceptable to the upstream LSM effort, or the Linux kernel in
general.
I've already recorded your NACK on several patches on two of the four
static call commits, if you like I can add it to the other two please
let me know and I'll be sure to do that. I've recorded your NACKs on
other patches in the past and mentioned those NACKs to Linus when
sending the pull request, and I will do so again during this upcoming
merge window.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists