Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751797AbbD3CpY (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:45:24 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:56859 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751106AbbD3CpT (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:45:19 -0400 Message-ID: <55419737.4000907@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:45:11 -0700 From: John Johansen Organization: Canonical User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Morris , Casey Schaufler , Stephen Smalley , Kees Cook , Paul Moore CC: LSM , James Morris , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Module stacking next steps References: <5536F260.3080201@schaufler-ca.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 911 Lines: 25 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, ...) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/