Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 16:43:28 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
        Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] exec: Control flow simplifications
Message-ID: <202005201642.E1C6B4A457@keescook>
References: <87h7wujhmz.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87sgga6ze4.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87v9l4zyla.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <877dx822er.fsf_-_@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
 <87d06ygssl.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87d06ygssl.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 05:12:10PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> I have pushed this out to:
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ebiederm/user-namespace.git exec-next
> 
> I have collected up the acks and reviewed-by's, and fixed a couple of
> typos but that is it.

Awesome!

> If we need comment fixes or additional cleanups we can apply that on top
> of this series.   This way the code can sit in linux-next until the
> merge window opens.
> 
> Before I pushed this out I also tested this with Kees new test of
> binfmt_misc and did not find any problems.

Did this mean to say binfmt_script? It'd be nice to get a binfmt_misc
test too, though.

Thanks!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook