On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:07 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:57 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add three system calls for the Linux Security Module ABI ... > > First off, a big thank you to Casey who took it upon himself to turn > my pseudo-code syscall suggestion into a proper patchset and saw it > through 15 revisions. Thanks also go out to everyone that has helped > review and comment on this effort; I know everyone is busy, but these > reviews are important. > > I'm happy to say that I think we're in a good place with this revision > of the LSM syscall patchset. I only see two outstanding issues, and > neither of those are bugs/showstoppers that affect the API, they are > simply areas where the implementation could be improved. With the > understanding that Casey is busy for the rest of the month, and my > desire to make sure this patchset gets a full dev cycle in linux-next, > I'm going to suggest merging this into the lsm/next-queue branch soon > (likely tomorrow) in preparation for merging it into lsm/next once the > upcoming merge window closes. Those who want to help improve the > implementation, as suggested in the feedback on this revision or > otherwise, are welcome to submit patches against the lsm/next-queue > branch and I will merge them into that branch once they pass review. > > If I don't hear any objections I'll plan on merging this patchset > tomorrow, I'll send a follow-up reply to this email when it's done. Since it's been *almost* a full 24 hours and no objections I went ahead and merged this patchset into lsm/next-queue with the intention of bringing them into lsm/next after the upcoming merge window closes. For those of you who have suggested changes, please feel free to submit patches against the lsm/next-queue branch and we can get them queued up along with these patches. Thanks everyone! -- paul-moore.com
