Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230912205658.3432-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com>
 <20230912205658.3432-1-casey@schaufler-ca.com> <CAHC9VhRcbp3iWQwL7FTUrcU1C3OsZ413Nbq+17oTwW7hZ7XvBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhRcbp3iWQwL7FTUrcU1C3OsZ413Nbq+17oTwW7hZ7XvBw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Oct 2023 17:55:04 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhSqY5+DR-jXprrftb1=CzDvhTh0Ep66A16RMd4L7W7TYw@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 Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:07=E2=80=AFPM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wr=
ote:
>
> 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.

Since it's been *almost* a full 24 hours and no objections I went
ahead and merged this patchset into lsm/next-queue with the intention
of bringing them into lsm/next after the upcoming merge window closes.
For those of you who have suggested changes, please feel free to
submit patches against the lsm/next-queue branch and we can get them
queued up along with these patches.

Thanks everyone!

--=20
paul-moore.com