On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:31 PM EET, Fan Wu wrote: > > > On 3/20/2024 1:31 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > 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 > > Sorry about the confusion with the RFC tag – I wasn't fully aware of its > conventional meaning and how it's perceived in terms of importance and > urgency. Point taken, and I'll make sure to remove the RFC tag for > future submissions. Definitely not my intention to clog up the workflow > or seem like I'm spamming. OK cool! Just wanted to point this out also because it already looks good enough not to be considered as RFC in my eyes :-) If you keep RFC it is by definition "look into if you have the bandwidth but please do not take this to mainline". No means to nitpick here... BR, Jarkko
