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, 6 Oct 2021 15:03:19 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micka=EBl_Sala=FCn?= <mic@digikod.net>
Cc:     bauen1 <j2468h@googlemail.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        arnd@arndb.de, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
        christian.brauner@ubuntu.com, christian@python.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        cyphar@cyphar.com, deven.desai@linux.microsoft.com,
        dvyukov@google.com, ebiggers@kernel.org, ericchiang@google.com,
        fweimer@redhat.com, geert@linux-m68k.org, jack@suse.cz,
        jannh@google.com, jmorris@namei.org,
        kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
        madvenka@linux.microsoft.com, mjg59@google.com,
        mszeredi@redhat.com, mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
        nramas@linux.microsoft.com, philippe.trebuchet@ssi.gouv.fr,
        scottsh@microsoft.com, sean.j.christopherson@intel.com,
        sgrubb@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, steve.dower@python.org,
        thibaut.sautereau@clip-os.org, vincent.strubel@ssi.gouv.fr,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, willy@infradead.org, zohar@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)
Message-ID: <202110061500.B8F821C@keescook>
References: <20201203173118.379271-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <d3b0da18-d0f6-3f72-d3ab-6cf19acae6eb@gmail.com>
 <2a4cf50c-7e79-75d1-7907-8218e669f7fa@digikod.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2a4cf50c-7e79-75d1-7907-8218e669f7fa@digikod.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:15:42PM +0200, Micka?l Sala?n wrote:
> There was no new reviews, probably because the FS maintainers were busy,
> and I was focused on Landlock (which is now in -next), but I plan to
> send a new patch series for trusted_for(2) soon.

Hi!

Did this ever happen? It looks like it's in good shape, and I think it's
a nice building block for userspace to have. Are you able to rebase and
re-send this?

I've tended to aim these things at akpm if Al gets busy. (And since
you've had past review from Al, that should be hopefully sufficient.)

Thanks for chasing this!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook