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> <CAHC9VhRkHuwjrtOoK+vn9zzERU2TM_2PEbQGRAZsr-D1pFv9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRkHuwjrtOoK+vn9zzERU2TM_2PEbQGRAZsr-D1pFv9GQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:51:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJcvwb_5dY-FomsDzJWZQG_5EWLmjBFJYNqomd0f9XO+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] Introduce security_create_user_ns()
To:     Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Frederick Lawler <fred@cloudflare.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        eparis@parisplace.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@cloudflare.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_G=C3=B6ttsche?= <cgzones@googlemail.com>,
        karl@bigbadwolfsecurity.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:40 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

+1