On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:46 -0500 > Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> With this set, a lot of dangerous operations (chroot, unshare, etc) >> become a lot less dangerous because there is no possibility of >> subverting privileged binaries. >> >> This patch completely breaks apparmor. Someone who understands (and >> uses) apparmor should fix it or at least give me a hint. > > So [patch 2/15] fixes all this up? > > I guess we should join the two patches into one, to avoid a silly > breakage window. That means that John loses a brownie point, but we > can mention him in the changelog, include his signed-off-by: > >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Several of these patches are missing your signed-off-by:. They should > all have your SOB, because you sent them. > Documentation/SubmittingPatches explains this. Oops - I'll add them! > I'm trying to find a way to merge all this code without reviewing it ;) > Alas, this is against my rules. Given the length of time for which > this patchset has been floating around, I'm a little surprised by the > lack of acked-by's and reviewed-by's. Have you been gathering them all > up? Are the networking guys all happy about this patchset? eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx acked the networking ones, and I have a smattering of others for the other patches. Given the review and feedback, I don't have a huge number of acked/reviewed-bys. I tried not to lose any after the first couple of revs, but I know I did some things wrong early on. I can prod some others who've contributed to add their tags, unless there is a good reason for them not too. I suspect it was just because of partial/drive-by reviewing, but I don't know. thanks! will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
