Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        revest@chromium.org, jackmanb@chromium.org, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kafai@fb.com,
        songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, eparis@parisplace.org,
        shuah@kernel.org, brauner@kernel.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@cloudflare.com, cgzones@googlemail.com,
        karl@bigbadwolfsecurity.com
References: <20220801180146.1157914-1-fred@cloudflare.com>
        <87les7cq03.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <CAHC9VhRpUxyxkPaTz1scGeRm+i4KviQQA7WismOX2q5agzC+DQ@mail.gmail.com>
        <87wnbia7jh.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
        <CAHC9VhS3udhEecVYVvHm=tuqiPGh034-xPqXYtFjBk23+p-Szg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 08 Aug 2022 14:26:04 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhS3udhEecVYVvHm=tuqiPGh034-xPqXYtFjBk23+p-Szg@mail.gmail.com>
        (Paul Moore's message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2022 15:16:16 -0400")
Message-ID: <877d3ia65v.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()
Precedence: bulk

Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> writes:

>> I did provide constructive feedback.  My feedback to his problem
>> was to address the real problem of bugs in the kernel.
>
> We've heard from several people who have use cases which require
> adding LSM-level access controls and observability to user namespace
> creation.  This is the problem we are trying to solve here; if you do
> not like the approach proposed in this patchset please suggest another
> implementation that allows LSMs visibility into user namespace
> creation.

Please stop, ignoring my feedback, not detailing what problem or
problems you are actually trying to be solved, and threatening to merge
code into files that I maintain that has the express purpose of breaking
my users.

You just artificially constrained the problems, so that no other
solution is acceptable.  On that basis alone I am object to this whole
approach to steam roll over me and my code.

Eric