Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 16:15:01 +0200 From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> To: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 05/12] LSM: Infrastructure management of the superblock On 12/08/2020 21:16, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> From: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> >> >> Move management of the superblock->sb_security blob out >> of the individual security modules and into the security >> infrastructure. Instead of allocating the blobs from within >> the modules the modules tell the infrastructure how much >> space is required, and the space is allocated there. >> >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com> >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> >> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com> >> Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> >> Reviewed-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> >> Link: >> https://email@example.com >> --- >> >> Changes since v17: >> * Rebase the original LSM stacking patch from v5.3 to v5.7: I fixed some >> diff conflicts caused by code moves and function renames in >> selinux/include/objsec.h and selinux/hooks.c . I checked that it >> builds but I didn't test the changes for SELinux nor SMACK. > > You shouldn't retain Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by lines from an earlier > patch if you made non-trivial changes to it (even more so if you didn't > test them). I think I made trivial changes according to the original patch. But without reply from other people with Signed-off-by or Reviewed-by (Casey, Kees, John), I'll remove them. I guess you don't want your Reviewed-by to be kept, so I'll remove it, except if you want to review this patch (or the modified part).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.