On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 7:09 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 04:05:53PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > Now back to the merge into the VFS tree ... I was very surprised to > > open this patchset and see that Christian had merged v5 after less > > than 24 hours (at least according to the email timestamps that I see) > > and without an explicit ACK for the SELinux changes. I've mentioned > > this to you before Christian, please do not merge any SELinux, LSM > > framework, or audit related patches without an explicit ACK. I > > Things go into the tree for testing when the VFS side is ready for > testing. We're at v5 and the patchset has gone through four iterations > over multiple months. It will go into linux-next and fs-next now for as > much expsure as possible. > > I'm not sure what the confusion between merging things into a tree and > sending things upstream is. I have explained this to you before. The > application message is also pretty clear about that. I'm not sure what the confusion is around my explicit request that you refrain from merging anything that touches the LSM framework, SELinux, or the audit subsystem without an explicit ACK. I have explained this to you before. For the record, your application/merge email makes no statement about only sending patches to Linus that have been ACK'd by all relevant parties. The only statement I can see in your email that remotely relates to ACKs is this: "It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated." ... which once again makes no claims about holding back changes that have not been properly ACK'd. -- paul-moore.com
