[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ528JBKbhiw1HNfv1kDBYv_C76cFB8a_Wa6DSqZp5_XuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 04:14:20 +0200
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, code@...icks.com,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>,
Nick Desaulniers <nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com>, Nicolas Schier <nicolas@...sle.eu>, nkapron@...gle.com,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Matteo Croce <teknoraver@...a.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, kysrinivasan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Introducing Hornet LSM
[...]
> Blaise started this most recent effort by attempting to address the
> concerns brought up in previous efforts, you and others rejected this
> first attempt and directed Blaise towards a light skeleton and LSM
> based approach, which is where he is at with Hornet. Once again, you
> reject this approach with minimal guidance on what would be
> acceptable, and our response is to ask for clarification on your
> preferred design. We're not asking for a full working solution,
> simply a couple of paragraphs outlining the design with enough detail
> to put forward a working solution that isn't immediately NACK'd.
> We've made this request multiple times in the past, most recently this
> past weekend, where KP replied that he would be "happy" to share
Here's the proposed design:
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CACYkzJ6VQUExfyt0=-FmXz46GHJh3d=FXh5j4KfexcEFbHV-vg@mail.gmail.com/#t
> designs/code. Unfortunately, since then all we've received from
> either you or KP since then has been effectively just a list of your
> objections on repeat; surely typing out a couple of paragraphs
> outlining a design would have been quicker, easier, and more
> constructive then your latest reply?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists