On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:28 AM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 1:00 AM EET, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2024 Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This patch introduces a new hook to save block device's integrity > > > data. For example, for dm-verity, LSMs can use this hook to save > > > the roothash signature of a dm-verity into the security blob, > > > and LSMs can make access decisions based on the data inside > > > the signature, like the signer certificate. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > -- > > > v1-v14: > > > + Not present > > > > > > v15: > > > + Introduced > > > > > > --- > > > include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h | 2 ++ > > > include/linux/security.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > > security/security.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+) > > > > I'm not sure why you made this a separate patch, help? If there is > > no significant reason why this is separate, please squash it together > > with patch 11/21. > > Off-topic: it is weird to have *RFC* patch set at v15. > > RFC by de-facto is something that can be safely ignored if you don't > have bandwidth. 15 versions of anything that can be safely ignored > is by definition spamming :-) I mean just conceptually. > > So does the RFC still hold or what the heck is going on with this one? > > Haven't followed for some time now... I mean if this RFC trend continues I'll just put auto-filter for this thread to put straight to the bin. There's enough non-RFC patch sets to review. BR, Jarkko
