Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Oct 2023 18:07:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRcbp3iWQwL7FTUrcU1C3OsZ413Nbq+17oTwW7hZ7XvBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls
To:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Cc:     linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        serge@hallyn.com, keescook@chromium.org,
        john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp,
        stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mic@digikod.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:57=E2=80=AFPM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca=
.com> wrote:
>
> Add three system calls for the Linux Security Module ABI ...

First off, a big thank you to Casey who took it upon himself to turn
my pseudo-code syscall suggestion into a proper patchset and saw it
through 15 revisions.  Thanks also go out to everyone that has helped
review and comment on this effort; I know everyone is busy, but these
reviews are important.

I'm happy to say that I think we're in a good place with this revision
of the LSM syscall patchset.  I only see two outstanding issues, and
neither of those are bugs/showstoppers that affect the API, they are
simply areas where the implementation could be improved.  With the
understanding that Casey is busy for the rest of the month, and my
desire to make sure this patchset gets a full dev cycle in linux-next,
I'm going to suggest merging this into the lsm/next-queue branch soon
(likely tomorrow) in preparation for merging it into lsm/next once the
upcoming merge window closes.  Those who want to help improve the
implementation, as suggested in the feedback on this revision or
otherwise, are welcome to submit patches against the lsm/next-queue
branch and I will merge them into that branch once they pass review.

If I don't hear any objections I'll plan on merging this patchset
tomorrow, I'll send a follow-up reply to this email when it's done.

--=20
paul-moore.com