On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 5:48 AM, Luis Ressel <aranea@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 17:43:38 -0400 > Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Considering where we are at with respect to the merge window, let's >> shelve this for now and I'll merge it after the next merge window >> closes. In all likelihood I'll be sending selinux/next up to James >> later this week and I'd like this to sit in linux-next for longer than >> a few days. > > That means the change will land in 4.14 at the earliest, right? (Just > out of curiosity.) That's correct. We are currently working towards a v4.12 release in Linus' tree, the upcoming merge window will be for v4.13, and things merged into selinux/next after that merge window will be for v4.14. > By the way, refpolicy only grants "socket" permissions to a handful of > domains, all of which also have the corresponding "unix_dgram_socket" > permissions. The fedora policy does the same (according to Stephen); > this only leaves custom policies to be potentially affected by this > change. While custom policies are definitely in the minority, we still need to do out best not to break them without warning. > Given that the SOCK_RAW->SOCK_DGRAM translation is obscure enough not to > be documented anywhere outside the kernel sources, I doubt there are > many users of it, anyway. You very well may be right, I just felt that such a change requires more than a week in the selinux/next tree. Thank you for your patch, it's in the queue and I'll be merging it into the selinux/next branch in a few weeks. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
