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;
Message-ID: <e4d1cfc8-6d50-57be-fd64-8c648acacaf5@digikod.net>
Date:   Thu, 4 May 2023 18:01:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: 
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] Landlock support for UML
Content-Language: en-US
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= <mic@digikod.net>
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     anton ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
        Christopher Obbard <chris.obbard@collabora.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?G=c3=bcnther_Noack?= <gnoack3000@gmail.com>,
        kuba <kuba@kernel.org>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Jeff Xu <jeffxu@google.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Ritesh Raj Sarraf <ritesh@collabora.com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd@collabora.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kselftest <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
References: <20230309165455.175131-1-mic@digikod.net>
 <cb7e6a4b-63d9-ddba-e0fc-d6352df2b3b6@digikod.net>
 <1227008149.272858.1679434728169.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
 <1f347bdf-a3da-981c-bfee-d6a1f7f51b85@digikod.net>
In-Reply-To: <1f347bdf-a3da-981c-bfee-d6a1f7f51b85@digikod.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Richard, any news?

On 04/04/2023 15:52, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 21/03/2023 22:38, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>> Von: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
>>> Richard, Anton, Johannes, what do you think about these UML changes?
>>
>> I like them but didn't had a chance for a deeper look so far. :-S
> 
> Good! Do you think it could make it for v6.4?  Should we push it in
> -next for testing?
> 
> Thanks,
>    Mickaël