On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:40 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:41 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > What level of due diligence would satisfy you Eric? > > > > Having a real conversation about what a change is doing and to talk > > about it's merits and it's pro's and cons. I can't promise I would be > > convinced but that is the kind of conversation it would take. > > Earlier today you talked about due diligence to ensure that userspace > won't break and I provided my reasoning on why userspace would not > break (at least not because of this change). Userspace might be > blocked from creating a new user namespace due to a security policy, > but that would be the expected and desired outcome, not breakage. As > far as your most recent comment regarding merit and pros/cons, I > believe we have had that discussion (quite a few times already); it > just seems you are not satisfied with the majority's conclusion. > > Personally, I'm not sure there is anything more I can do to convince > you that this patchset is reasonable; I'm going to leave it to others > at this point, or we can all simply agree to disagree for the moment. > Just as you haven't heard a compelling argument for this patchset, I > haven't heard a compelling argument against it. Barring some > significant new discussion point, or opinion, I still plan on merging > this into the LSM next branch when the merge window closes next week > so it has time to go through a full round of linux-next testing. > Assuming no unresolvable problems are found during the additional > testing I plan to send it to Linus during the v6.1 merge window and > I'm guessing we will get to go through this all again. It's less than > ideal, but I think this is where we are at right now. +1
