On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 4:49 PM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 8/24/20 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > >>>>> Is Ondrej's re-try approach I need to use to workaround policy reload issue? > >>>> > >>>> No, I think perhaps we should move the mutex to selinux_state instead > >>>> of selinux_fs_info. selinux_fs_info has a pointer to selinux_state so > >>>> it can then use it indirectly. Note that your patches are going to > >>>> conflict with other ongoing work in the selinux next branch that is > >>>> refactoring policy load and converting the policy rwlock to RCU. > >>> > >>> Yeah, and I'm experimenting with a patch on top of Stephen's RCU work > >>> that would allow you to do this in a straightforward way without even > >>> messing with the fsi->mutex. My patch may or may not be eventually > >>> committed, but either way I'd recommend holding off on this for a > >>> while until the dust settles around the RCU conversion. > >> > >> I can make the SELinux\IMA changes in "selinux next branch" taking > >> dependencies on Stephen's patches + relevant IMA patches. > > > > I know it can be frustrating to hear what I'm about to say, but the > > best option is probably just to wait a little to let things settle in > > the SELinux -next branch. There is a lot of stuff going on right now > > with patches flooding in (at least "flooding" from a SELinux kernel > > development perspective) and we/I've haven't gotten through all of > > them yet. > > > > Could you please let me know when the current set of changes in SELinux > next branch would be completed and be ready to take new changes? > > I mean, roughly - would it be a month from now or you expect that to > take longer? I can't speak for Paul but I would expect it to be sooner rather than later. Ondrej has some follow ups on top of my policy rcu conversion but then it should be good to go.
