On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> procedure would you like to follow?
What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
Any objections or concerns?
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:55:51AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> >
> > James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> > the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> > procedure would you like to follow?
>
> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
At the very worst, I see it as a very nice clean up.
At best, I see it as extremely useful for the things I want to do, with
various "minor" LSM working together.
> Any objections or concerns?
As far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy with it.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook @outflux.net
On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>>
>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>> procedure would you like to follow?
>
> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>
> Any objections or concerns?
>
No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
this land.
I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> >> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> >> procedure would you like to follow?
> >
> > What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> > useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
> >
> > Any objections or concerns?
> >
> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
> this land.
>
> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>
>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>
>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>
>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>
>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>> this land.
>>
>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
hate to have to do it more often than I have to.
On 4/30/2015 7:48 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
>>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>>
>>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>>
>>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>>> this land.
>>>
>>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
>> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
> Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
> be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
> Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
> hate to have to do it more often than I have to.
Whoops! I read mail addressed directly to me before I read what goes
just to lists. I see that security-next is updated. I will have the update
ready as quickly as possible. Thank you.