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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <877d3ia65v.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <87bksu8qs2.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
 <CAHC9VhTEwD2y9Witj-1z3e2TC-NGjghQ4KT4Dqf3UOLzDcDc3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87czd95rjc.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org> <CAHC9VhQY6H4JxOvSYWk2cpH8E3LYeOkMP_ay+ih+ULKKdeob=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87a68dccyu.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <87a68dccyu.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 18:40:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRkHuwjrtOoK+vn9zzERU2TM_2PEbQGRAZsr-D1pFv9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 5:41 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> writes:
> >
> > What level of due diligence would satisfy you Eric?
>
> Having a real conversation about what a change is doing and to talk
> about it's merits and it's pro's and cons.  I can't promise I would be
> convinced but that is the kind of conversation it would take.

Earlier today you talked about due diligence to ensure that userspace
won't break and I provided my reasoning on why userspace would not
break (at least not because of this change).  Userspace might be
blocked from creating a new user namespace due to a security policy,
but that would be the expected and desired outcome, not breakage.  As
far as your most recent comment regarding merit and pros/cons, I
believe we have had that discussion (quite a few times already); it
just seems you are not satisfied with the majority's conclusion.

Personally, I'm not sure there is anything more I can do to convince
you that this patchset is reasonable; I'm going to leave it to others
at this point, or we can all simply agree to disagree for the moment.
Just as you haven't heard a compelling argument for this patchset, I
haven't heard a compelling argument against it.  Barring some
significant new discussion point, or opinion, I still plan on merging
this into the LSM next branch when the merge window closes next week
so it has time to go through a full round of linux-next testing.
Assuming no unresolvable problems are found during the additional
testing I plan to send it to Linus during the v6.1 merge window and
I'm guessing we will get to go through this all again.  It's less than
ideal, but I think this is where we are at right now.

-- 
paul-moore.com