On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 3:49 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 3:10 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 7:02 AM David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2021 23:17:00 -0400 > > > > > > > > While I understand you did not intend to mislead DaveM and the netdev > > > > folks with the v2 patchset, your failure to properly manage the > > > > patchset's metadata *did* mislead them and as a result a patchset with > > > > serious concerns from the SELinux side was merged. You need to revert > > > > this patchset while we continue to discuss, develop, and verify a > > > > proper fix that we can all agree on. If you decide not to revert this > > > > patchset I will work with DaveM to do it for you, and that is not > > > > something any of us wants. > > > > > > I would prefer a follow-up rathewr than a revert at this point. > > > > > > Please work with Xin to come up with a fix that works for both of you. > > > > We are working with Xin (see this thread), but you'll notice there is > > still not a clear consensus on the best path forward. The only thing > > I am clear on at this point is that the current code in linux-next is > > *not* something we want from a SELinux perspective. I don't like > > leaving known bad code like this in linux-next for more than a day or > > two so please revert it, now. If your policy is to merge substantive > > non-network subsystem changes into the network tree without the proper > > ACKs from the other subsystem maintainers, it would seem reasonable to > > also be willing to revert those patches when the affected subsystems > > request it. > > > > I understand that if a patchset is being ignored you might feel the > > need to act without an explicit ACK, but this particular patchset > > wasn't even a day old before you merged into the netdev tree. Not to > > mention that the patchset was posted during the second day of the > > merge window, a time when many maintainers are busy testing code, > > sending pull requests to Linus, and generally managing merge window > > fallout. > > Hi Paul, > > It's applied on net tree, I think mostly because I posted this on net.git tree. > Also, it's well related to the network part and affects SCTP protocol > quite a lot. Yes, I know it is in the net tree, that is how it made its way into linux-next. I wouldn't have merged it yet, and if not me who else would have merged it beside the netdev folks? Am I misunderstanding your comment? > I wanted to post it on selinux tree: pcmoore/selinux.git, but I noticed the > commit on top is written in 2019: > > commit 6e6934bae891681bc23b2536fff20e0898683f2c (HEAD -> main, > origin/main, origin/HEAD) > Author: Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Sep 17 15:02:56 2019 -0400 > > selinux: add a SELinux specific README.md > > DO NOT SUBMIT UPSTREAM > > Then I thought this tree was no longer active, sorry about that. Like many kernel trees the default/main branch for the SELinux tree doesn't contain anything useful, for the SELinux tree (and audit for that matter) it is basically just the most recent major/minor tag from Linus tree with a single tree specific README.md file patch so that the GitHub mirror has a pretty landing page and a canonical reference for how the tree is maintained. * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-kernel The general approach to the SELinux tree, as documented in the README.md, is to do all of the linux-next work in the selinux/next branch with the stable work happening in the selinux/stable-X.Y branches. FWIW, once we've resolved things I would be happy to have the patchset live in the SELinux tree as opposed to the netdev tree. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
