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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJ-EccOy4qDpbfrP5=KH40LSOx1F4-ciY2=hFv_c+goUHLJ6PQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiLXXR1+o4VAuw5MM3V1D8h6C6te3y8VMvW8iAJw6noJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-EccPGQ62yMK1Nmvie4qWzproSqb4POwAD4_0Nt62KLbGhqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whZz_E+Bu1L6YTxtDQu_piBjUBoULW7vkKxNux54kwFAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-EccP-MW3MZ3n=u-CoPD1nL73paLUSP3v5dQu+iiQLAtaZfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHk-=wipG5Wpfydn7YUbahDV_G0GZqeUqEWax_mSLBuVeiT0yg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wipG5Wpfydn7YUbahDV_G0GZqeUqEWax_mSLBuVeiT0yg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:28:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ-EccN3c73xOXXy+C3UEt0=jiNMaKb2Ps9Bv1ucZnXBeW28VA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:20 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:12 PM Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > That said I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line for which kinds
> > of changes really should be required to have bake time in -next. If
> > you think this is one of those cases, we can hold off on this until we
> > have some bake time for v5.9.
>
> It's merged, but in general the rule for "bake in -next" should be
> absolutely everything.
>
> The only exception is just pure and plain fixes.

Sounds good, that makes it pretty clear.

Thanks

>
> This SafeSetID change should in fact have been there for two different
> reasons: not only was it a new feature rather than a fix (in
> linux-next just for testing), it was one that crossed subsystem
> borders (should be in linux-next just for cross-subsystem testing). It
> touched files that very much aren't touched by just you.
>
> "Looks obvious" has nothing to do with avoiding linux-next.
>
> I suspect most of the bugs we have tend to be in code that "looked
> obvious" to somebody.
>
>                      Linus