Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
index 6e156d2acffc..d5a6ab9b5eb2 100644
--- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
+++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
@@ -1724,6 +1724,7 @@ struct lsm_info {
unsigned long flags; /* Optional: flags describing LSM */
int *enabled; /* Optional: controlled by CONFIG_LSM */
int (*init)(void); /* Required. */
+ int (*release)(void); /* Release associated resources */
struct lsm_blob_sizes *blobs; /* Optional: for blob sharing. */
};
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>
> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
which was not explicitly given.
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
> Cc: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
> Cc: Thomas Wei?schuh <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
Use --cc parameter to `git send-email`.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>
>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
> which was not explicitly given.
Mea culpa.
I misunderstood that you have approved the change when saying that I should
file a formal patch. It worked with Florian Westphal in my first patch, so I
thought it would be inappropriate to leave out who endorsed the patch.
Thousand apologies. This is my second patch, so I am asking for some extra
grace ...
What should I do now?
Regards,
Mirsad
>> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Thomas Weißschuh <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> Use --cc parameter to `git send-email`.
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union
On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>
>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>
> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
> which was not explicitly given.
Hi, Andy,
This change could have long lasting consequences if approved, and I am not
continuing the patch submission without your mentoring and approval.
It is true that I assumed that you have reviewed the patch, but you did not
explicitly give the Reviewed-by tag.
But I am rather new to this patch submission process, and please would you
please mentor me to do this the right way.
Best regards,
Mirsad
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:52:32PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> >>
> >> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
> >> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
> >
> >> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> >
> > I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
> > which was not explicitly given.
>
> Mea culpa.
>
> I misunderstood that you have approved the change when saying that I should
> file a formal patch. It worked with Florian Westphal in my first patch, so I
> thought it would be inappropriate to leave out who endorsed the patch.
We have Suggested-by tag for that.
> Thousand apologies. This is my second patch, so I am asking for some extra
> grace ...
> What should I do now?
Wait at least a couple of days (even more, since it's weekend) for other
comments and then send a v2 of the series with the comments addressed.
Btw, you may take my "smart" script [1] for sending patch series. It
makes much less headache on how to do that properly.
[1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:02:18PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
> >>
> >> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
> >> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
> >
> >> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
> >
> > I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
> > which was not explicitly given.
> This change could have long lasting consequences if approved, and I am not
> continuing the patch submission without your mentoring and approval.
>
> It is true that I assumed that you have reviewed the patch, but you did not
> explicitly give the Reviewed-by tag.
>
> But I am rather new to this patch submission process, and please would you
> please mentor me to do this the right way.
We have a nice documentation for that [1]. Please, read it in full.
If some questions left, do not hesitate to ask.
[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
On 10. 03. 2023. 21:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:52:32PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>>>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
>>> which was not explicitly given.
>>
>> Mea culpa.
>>
>> I misunderstood that you have approved the change when saying that I should
>> file a formal patch. It worked with Florian Westphal in my first patch, so I
>> thought it would be inappropriate to leave out who endorsed the patch.
>
> We have Suggested-by tag for that.
Yes, I think that's what is right.
I agree that it is inappropriate to add something that was not
explicitly given. It's your tag and you define the rules. :-)
>> Thousand apologies. This is my second patch, so I am asking for some extra
>> grace ...
>
>> What should I do now?
>
> Wait at least a couple of days (even more, since it's weekend) for other
> comments and then send a v2 of the series with the comments addressed.
Will do. It is better done right than tonight.
> Btw, you may take my "smart" script [1] for sending patch series. It
> makes much less headache on how to do that properly.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh
You should please understand that sometimes I simply block or deadlock on
some very simple things. I have not yet implemented RCUs but rely on
evil spinlocks :-)
Thanks again. Then I'll take a beer and chill out a bit. Perhaps sniff
around if something else is left without a destructor or a release hook,
too.
However, it might be too daring to go straight into the LSM area. I am
strongly depending on your experience and mentoring, and yes, you define
the rules for assisting your team.
I just hope I did not break the Rules of Conduct. Tried to Cc: as many
maintainers as I could.
They said that every beginning is hard. But no pain, no gain :-/
Regards,
Mirsad
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union
On 10. 03. 2023. 21:12, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:52:32PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>>>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
>>> which was not explicitly given.
>>
>> Mea culpa.
>>
>> I misunderstood that you have approved the change when saying that I should
>> file a formal patch. It worked with Florian Westphal in my first patch, so I
>> thought it would be inappropriate to leave out who endorsed the patch.
>
> We have Suggested-by tag for that.
Done exactly that, and now I have to reward myself for the first
successful multi-part patch submission.
>> Thousand apologies. This is my second patch, so I am asking for some extra
>> grace ...
>
>> What should I do now?
>
> Wait at least a couple of days (even more, since it's weekend) for other
> comments and then send a v2 of the series with the comments addressed.
Actually, Mr. Paul Moore requested the rest of the patch, so I
did a complete resend immediately.
> Btw, you may take my "smart" script [1] for sending patch series. It
> makes much less headache on how to do that properly.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/andy-shev/home-bin-tools/blob/master/ge2maintainer.sh
Thanks for the tip.
It's pleasure to be working with you guys, it's a great brainstorming
session and I really enjoyed it. It's a privilege to assist your
excellent team.
Best regards,
Mirsad
--
Mirsad Goran Todorovac
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb, Republic of Croatia
The European Union
On 10.3.2023. 21:14, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 09:02:18PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>> On 10. 03. 2023. 20:47, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 08:42:00PM +0100, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add release() hook to the definition of the LSM modules, to enable calling
>>>> destructors and deallocating allocated resources cleanly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> I haven't given you this tag. Sorry, you must not add something
>>> which was not explicitly given.
>
>> This change could have long lasting consequences if approved, and I am not
>> continuing the patch submission without your mentoring and approval.
>>
>> It is true that I assumed that you have reviewed the patch, but you did not
>> explicitly give the Reviewed-by tag.
>>
>> But I am rather new to this patch submission process, and please would you
>> please mentor me to do this the right way.
>
> We have a nice documentation for that [1]. Please, read it in full.
> If some questions left, do not hesitate to ask.
>
> [1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
Hi,
I am catching up on this, and now I see that my Reviewed-by: tag to the patch
proposal you just suggested was way off.
I apologise once again.
I was in clear violation of the Code of Conduct, though I thought I was doing
just what it was demanded.
There is beginner's luck, but there are also newbie errors.
Reviewed-by: as per patch submission instructions implies much more than I have
assumed when writing it.
But they say that a fault that makes one humble is better than the success that
makes him arrogant.
Thank you for taking the time from your busy schedule to instruct me to read
that fine manual, which I ought to have done by myself in the first place.
Thanks again for all the mentoring on the patch submission process.
I haven't Cc:-ed the developers and maintainers not to fill their mailboxes needlessly,
but it goes to the list so this is a public formal apology.
Best regards,
Mirsad
--
Mirsad Todorovac
System engineer
Faculty of Graphic Arts | Academy of Fine Arts
University of Zagreb
Republic of Croatia, the European Union
Sistem inženjer
Grafički fakultet | Akademija likovnih umjetnosti
Sveučilište u Zagrebu