On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 16:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 3:07 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 10:33 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 7:59 AM Roberto Sassu > > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2024-02-12 at 16:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 4:06 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Roberto, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c > > > > > > > index d9d2636104db..f3d92bffd02f 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/security/security.c > > > > > > > +++ b/security/security.c > > > > > > > @@ -2972,6 +2972,23 @@ int security_file_open(struct file *file) > > > > > > > return fsnotify_perm(file, MAY_OPEN); <=== Conflict > > > > > > > > > > > > Replace with "return fsnotify_open_perm(file);" > > > > > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch set doesn't apply cleaning to 6.8-rcX without this > > > > > > change. Unless > > > > > > there are other issues, I can make the change. > > > > > > > > > > I take it this means you want to pull this via the IMA/EVM tree? > > > > > > > > Not sure about that, but I have enough changes to do to make a v10. > > > > @Roberto: please add my "Reviewed-by" to the remaining patches. > > > > > Sorry, I should have been more clear, the point I was trying to > > > resolve was who was going to take this patchset (eventually). There > > > are other patches destined for the LSM tree that touch the LSM hooks > > > in a way which will cause conflicts with this patchset, and if > > > you/Mimi are going to take this via the IMA/EVM tree - which is fine > > > with me - I need to take that into account when merging things in the > > > LSM tree during this cycle. It's not a big deal either way, it would > > > just be nice to get an answer on that within the next week. > > > > Similarly there are other changes for IMA and EVM. If you're willing to > > create > > a topic branch for just the v10 patch set that can be merged into your tree > > and > > into my tree, I'm fine with your upstreaming v10. (I'll wait to send my pull > > request after yours.) Roberto will add my Ack's to the integrity, IMA, and > > EVM > > related patches. However if you're not willing to create a topic branch, > > I'll > > upstream the v10 patch set. > > I'm not a big fan of sharing topic branches across different subsystem > trees, I'd much rather just agree that one tree or another takes the > patchset and the others plan accordingly. Just curious why not? > Based on our previous > discussions I was under the impression that you wanted me to merge > this patchset into lsm/dev, but it looks like that is no longer the > case - which is okay by me. Paul, I don't recall saying that. Please go ahead and upstream it. Roberto can add my acks accordingly. Mimi > Assuming Roberto gets a v10 out soon, do you expect to merge the v10 > patchset and send it up during the upcoming merge window (for v6.9), > or are you expecting to wait until after the upcoming merge window > closes and target v6.10? Once again, either is fine, I'm just trying > to coordinate this with other patches.
