Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML

To: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 15:52:07 +0200
Cc: anton ivanov <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Obbard <chris.obbard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Günther Noack <gnoack3000@xxxxxxxxx>, kuba <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Xu <jeffxu@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ritesh Raj Sarraf <ritesh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>, Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kselftest <linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LSM <linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1227008149.272858.1679434728169.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
User-agent:


On 21/03/2023 22:38, Richard Weinberger wrote:

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----

Von: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes?


I like them but didn't had a chance for a deeper look so far. :-S

Good! Do you think it could make it for v6.4? Should we push it in-next for testing?


Thanks,
 Mickaël

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
  - From: Mickaël Salaün

References:
- [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
  - From: Mickaël Salaün
- Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
  - From: Mickaël Salaün
- Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
  - From: Richard Weinberger