Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <50db058a-7dde-441b-a7f9-f6837fe8b69f@schaufler-ca.com>
 <CAGXu5jLUJYM3nDDhFeBOKkTnyCR-tXAv-rteBJFMBn_J7kVkqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.1812120556040.11653@namei.org> <CAGXu5j+bx7nJBMdFYigYnJFRyCvz0NAxfiWF8yP9EhRESLnn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+bx7nJBMdFYigYnJFRyCvz0NAxfiWF8yP9EhRESLnn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:29:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJOGKAFrFF7HSPnqLpLz0no2Ae_z0TkWPeRt1WWqhqFOA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/38] LSM: Module stacking for SARA and Landlock
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SE Linux <selinux@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWlja2HDq2wgU2FsYcO8bg==?= <mic@digikod.net>,
        Salvatore Mesoraca <s.mesoraca16@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:19 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:57 AM James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 3:22 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> > > > v5: Include Kees Cook's rework of the lsm command
> > > >     line interface. Stacking is not conditional.
> > >
> > > Can you resend this series with corrected "From:" lines in the body, etc?
> > >
> > > Beyond that, I obviously like it. James, what's needed for this to move forward?
> >
> > If there are no outstanding issues, I plan to merge this for 4.21.
>
> Yeah, it looks good to me. (Excepting getting the authorship sorted.)

I didn't see this actually get merged? Was there something that needed
fixing? Should I send you a direct pull request for v5.1?

-- 
Kees Cook