[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:26:04 -0500
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
>> I did provide constructive feedback. My feedback to his problem
>> was to address the real problem of bugs in the kernel.
>
> We've heard from several people who have use cases which require
> adding LSM-level access controls and observability to user namespace
> creation. This is the problem we are trying to solve here; if you do
> not like the approach proposed in this patchset please suggest another
> implementation that allows LSMs visibility into user namespace
> creation.
Please stop, ignoring my feedback, not detailing what problem or
problems you are actually trying to be solved, and threatening to merge
code into files that I maintain that has the express purpose of breaking
my users.
You just artificially constrained the problems, so that no other
solution is acceptable. On that basis alone I am object to this whole
approach to steam roll over me and my code.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists