On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:41 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > What level of due diligence would satisfy you Eric? > > Having a real conversation about what a change is doing and to talk > about it's merits and it's pro's and cons. I can't promise I would be > convinced but that is the kind of conversation it would take. Earlier today you talked about due diligence to ensure that userspace won't break and I provided my reasoning on why userspace would not break (at least not because of this change). Userspace might be blocked from creating a new user namespace due to a security policy, but that would be the expected and desired outcome, not breakage. As far as your most recent comment regarding merit and pros/cons, I believe we have had that discussion (quite a few times already); it just seems you are not satisfied with the majority's conclusion. Personally, I'm not sure there is anything more I can do to convince you that this patchset is reasonable; I'm going to leave it to others at this point, or we can all simply agree to disagree for the moment. Just as you haven't heard a compelling argument for this patchset, I haven't heard a compelling argument against it. Barring some significant new discussion point, or opinion, I still plan on merging this into the LSM next branch when the merge window closes next week so it has time to go through a full round of linux-next testing. Assuming no unresolvable problems are found during the additional testing I plan to send it to Linus during the v6.1 merge window and I'm guessing we will get to go through this all again. It's less than ideal, but I think this is where we are at right now. -- paul-moore.com
