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. I was not trying to place an insurmountable barrier I was simply looking to see if people had been being careful and doing what is generally accepted for submitting a kernel patch. From all I can see that has completely not happened here. > If that isn't the case, and this request is being made in good faith Again you are calling me a liar. I really don't appreciate that. As for something already returning an error. The setuid system call also has error returns, and enforcing RLIMIT_NPROC caused sendmail to misbehave. I bring up the past in this way only to illustrate that things can happen. That simply examining the kernel and not thinking about userspace really isn't enough. I am also concerned about the ecosystem effects of adding random access control checks to a system call that does not perform access control checks. As I said this patch is changing a rather fundamental design decision by adding an access control. A design decision that for the most part has worked out quite well, and has allowed applications to add sandboxing support to themselves without asking permission to anyone. Adding an access control all of a sudden means application developers are having to ask for permission to things that are perfectly safe, and it means many parts of the kernel gets less love both in use and in maintenance. It might be possible to convince me that design decision needs to change, or that what is being proposed is small enough it does not practically change that design decision. Calling me a liar is not the way to change my mind. Ignoring me and pushing this through without addressing my concerns is not the way to change my mind. I honestly I want what I asked for at the start. I want discussion of what problems are being solved so we can talk about the problem or problems and if this is even the appropriate solution to them. Eric
