On Fri, 2023-10-13 at 17:55 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > 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. Sorry, I just noticed LSM_ID_IMA. Since we have the 'integrity' LSM, I think it should be LSM_ID_INTEGRITY. Mimi, all, do you agree? If yes, I send a patch shortly. Thanks Roberto
