From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp, paul@paul-moore.com, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v26 02/25] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure. Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 11:53:00 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <53108f3e-3297-3d8b-cba9-2b12ca30d666@digikod.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1c3874c1-870a-ac60-03e6-2c16d49e185b@schaufler-ca.com> On 26/05/2021 01:52, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 5/22/2021 1:39 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> I like this design but there is an issue with Landlock though, see below. >> >> On 13/05/2021 22:07, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> When more than one security module is exporting data to >>> audit and networking sub-systems a single 32 bit integer >>> is no longer sufficient to represent the data. Add a >>> structure to be used instead. >>> >>> The lsmblob structure is currently an array of >>> u32 "secids". There is an entry for each of the >>> security modules built into the system that would >>> use secids if active. The system assigns the module >>> a "slot" when it registers hooks. If modules are >>> compiled in but not registered there will be unused >>> slots. >>> >>> A new lsm_id structure, which contains the name >>> of the LSM and its slot number, is created. There >>> is an instance for each LSM, which assigns the name >>> and passes it to the infrastructure to set the slot. >>> >>> The audit rules data is expanded to use an array of >>> security module data rather than a single instance. >>> Because IMA uses the audit rule functions it is >>> affected as well. >>> >>> Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> >>> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> >>> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>> Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org> >>> Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com >>> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org >>> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> >>> To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com> >>> --- >>> include/linux/audit.h | 4 +- >>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 12 ++++- >>> include/linux/security.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>> kernel/auditfilter.c | 24 +++++----- >>> kernel/auditsc.c | 13 +++--- >>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> security/bpf/hooks.c | 12 ++++- >>> security/commoncap.c | 7 ++- >>> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 40 +++++++++++----- >>> security/landlock/cred.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/fs.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/ptrace.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/setup.c | 4 ++ >>> security/landlock/setup.h | 1 + >>> security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 8 +++- >>> security/lockdown/lockdown.c | 7 ++- >>> security/safesetid/lsm.c | 8 +++- >>> security/security.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 8 +++- >>> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 8 +++- >>> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> 22 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-) >>> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c >>> index f8e8e980454c..4a12666a4090 100644 >>> --- a/security/landlock/setup.c >>> +++ b/security/landlock/setup.c >>> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = { >>> .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security), >>> }; >>> >>> +struct lsm_id landlock_lsmid __lsm_ro_after_init = { >>> + .lsm = LANDLOCK_NAME, >> It is missing: .slot = LSMBLOB_NEEDED, > > Sorry for the delay. > > Landlock does not provide any of the hooks that use a struct lsmblob. > That would be secid_to_secctx, secctx_to_secid, inode_getsecid, > cred_getsecid, kernel_act_as task_getsecid_subj task_getsecid_obj and > ipc_getsecid. Setting .slot = LSMBLOB_NEEDED indicates that the LSM > uses a slot in struct lsmblob. Landlock does not need a slot. Indeed, the (generic) "blob" name misled me. Would it make sense to use a name with "secid" in it instead? Shouldn't the slot field be set to LSMBLOB_NOT_NEEDED (-3) then (instead of the implicit 0)? > >> >> You can run the Landlock tests please? >> make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=landlock gen_tar >> tar -xf kselftest.tar.gz && ./run_kselftest.sh > > Sure. I'll add them to my routine. Thanks. > >> >> >>> +}; >>> + >>> static int __init landlock_init(void) >>> { >>> landlock_add_cred_hooks(); >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c >>> index e12a7c463468..a3276deb1b8a 100644 >>> --- a/security/security.c >>> +++ b/security/security.c >>> @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) >>> init_debug("sock blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_sock); >>> init_debug("superblock blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_superblock); >>> init_debug("task blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_task); >>> + init_debug("lsmblob size = %zu\n", sizeof(struct lsmblob)); >>> >>> /* >>> * Create any kmem_caches needed for blobs >>> @@ -471,21 +472,36 @@ static int lsm_append(const char *new, char **result) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +/* >>> + * Current index to use while initializing the lsmblob secid list. >>> + */ >>> +static int lsm_slot __lsm_ro_after_init; >>> + >>> /** >>> * security_add_hooks - Add a modules hooks to the hook lists. >>> * @hooks: the hooks to add >>> * @count: the number of hooks to add >>> - * @lsm: the name of the security module >>> + * @lsmid: the identification information for the security module >>> * >>> * Each LSM has to register its hooks with the infrastructure. >>> + * If the LSM is using hooks that export secids allocate a slot >>> + * for it in the lsmblob. >>> */ >>> void __init security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count, >>> - char *lsm) >>> + struct lsm_id *lsmid) >>> { >>> int i; >>> >> Could you add a WARN_ON(!lsmid->slot || !lsmid->name) here? > > Yes. That's reasonable. I guess my above comment makes sense if lsmid->slot should not be zero but LSMBLOB_NOT_NEEDED instead, otherwise the Landlock lsmid would throw a warning. > >> >> >>> + if (lsmid->slot == LSMBLOB_NEEDED) { >>> + if (lsm_slot >= LSMBLOB_ENTRIES) >>> + panic("%s Too many LSMs registered.\n", __func__); >>> + lsmid->slot = lsm_slot++; >>> + init_debug("%s assigned lsmblob slot %d\n", lsmid->lsm, >>> + lsmid->slot); >>> + } >>> + >>> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>> - hooks[i].lsm = lsm; >>> + hooks[i].lsmid = lsmid; >>> hlist_add_tail_rcu(&hooks[i].list, hooks[i].head); >>> } >>> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> To: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, casey.schaufler@intel.com, jmorris@namei.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org Cc: john.johansen@canonical.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-audit@redhat.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov Subject: Re: [PATCH v26 02/25] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure. Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 11:53:00 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <53108f3e-3297-3d8b-cba9-2b12ca30d666@digikod.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1c3874c1-870a-ac60-03e6-2c16d49e185b@schaufler-ca.com> On 26/05/2021 01:52, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 5/22/2021 1:39 AM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >> I like this design but there is an issue with Landlock though, see below. >> >> On 13/05/2021 22:07, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>> When more than one security module is exporting data to >>> audit and networking sub-systems a single 32 bit integer >>> is no longer sufficient to represent the data. Add a >>> structure to be used instead. >>> >>> The lsmblob structure is currently an array of >>> u32 "secids". There is an entry for each of the >>> security modules built into the system that would >>> use secids if active. The system assigns the module >>> a "slot" when it registers hooks. If modules are >>> compiled in but not registered there will be unused >>> slots. >>> >>> A new lsm_id structure, which contains the name >>> of the LSM and its slot number, is created. There >>> is an instance for each LSM, which assigns the name >>> and passes it to the infrastructure to set the slot. >>> >>> The audit rules data is expanded to use an array of >>> security module data rather than a single instance. >>> Because IMA uses the audit rule functions it is >>> affected as well. >>> >>> Acked-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> >>> Acked-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> >>> Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>> Cc: <bpf@vger.kernel.org> >>> Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com >>> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: selinux@vger.kernel.org >>> To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> >>> To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@linux.microsoft.com> >>> --- >>> include/linux/audit.h | 4 +- >>> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 12 ++++- >>> include/linux/security.h | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>> kernel/auditfilter.c | 24 +++++----- >>> kernel/auditsc.c | 13 +++--- >>> security/apparmor/lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> security/bpf/hooks.c | 12 ++++- >>> security/commoncap.c | 7 ++- >>> security/integrity/ima/ima_policy.c | 40 +++++++++++----- >>> security/landlock/cred.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/fs.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/ptrace.c | 2 +- >>> security/landlock/setup.c | 4 ++ >>> security/landlock/setup.h | 1 + >>> security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 8 +++- >>> security/lockdown/lockdown.c | 7 ++- >>> security/safesetid/lsm.c | 8 +++- >>> security/security.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >>> security/selinux/hooks.c | 8 +++- >>> security/smack/smack_lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> security/tomoyo/tomoyo.c | 8 +++- >>> security/yama/yama_lsm.c | 7 ++- >>> 22 files changed, 262 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-) >>> >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c >>> index f8e8e980454c..4a12666a4090 100644 >>> --- a/security/landlock/setup.c >>> +++ b/security/landlock/setup.c >>> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = { >>> .lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security), >>> }; >>> >>> +struct lsm_id landlock_lsmid __lsm_ro_after_init = { >>> + .lsm = LANDLOCK_NAME, >> It is missing: .slot = LSMBLOB_NEEDED, > > Sorry for the delay. > > Landlock does not provide any of the hooks that use a struct lsmblob. > That would be secid_to_secctx, secctx_to_secid, inode_getsecid, > cred_getsecid, kernel_act_as task_getsecid_subj task_getsecid_obj and > ipc_getsecid. Setting .slot = LSMBLOB_NEEDED indicates that the LSM > uses a slot in struct lsmblob. Landlock does not need a slot. Indeed, the (generic) "blob" name misled me. Would it make sense to use a name with "secid" in it instead? Shouldn't the slot field be set to LSMBLOB_NOT_NEEDED (-3) then (instead of the implicit 0)? > >> >> You can run the Landlock tests please? >> make -C tools/testing/selftests TARGETS=landlock gen_tar >> tar -xf kselftest.tar.gz && ./run_kselftest.sh > > Sure. I'll add them to my routine. Thanks. > >> >> >>> +}; >>> + >>> static int __init landlock_init(void) >>> { >>> landlock_add_cred_hooks(); >> [...] >> >>> diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c >>> index e12a7c463468..a3276deb1b8a 100644 >>> --- a/security/security.c >>> +++ b/security/security.c >>> @@ -344,6 +344,7 @@ static void __init ordered_lsm_init(void) >>> init_debug("sock blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_sock); >>> init_debug("superblock blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_superblock); >>> init_debug("task blob size = %d\n", blob_sizes.lbs_task); >>> + init_debug("lsmblob size = %zu\n", sizeof(struct lsmblob)); >>> >>> /* >>> * Create any kmem_caches needed for blobs >>> @@ -471,21 +472,36 @@ static int lsm_append(const char *new, char **result) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> +/* >>> + * Current index to use while initializing the lsmblob secid list. >>> + */ >>> +static int lsm_slot __lsm_ro_after_init; >>> + >>> /** >>> * security_add_hooks - Add a modules hooks to the hook lists. >>> * @hooks: the hooks to add >>> * @count: the number of hooks to add >>> - * @lsm: the name of the security module >>> + * @lsmid: the identification information for the security module >>> * >>> * Each LSM has to register its hooks with the infrastructure. >>> + * If the LSM is using hooks that export secids allocate a slot >>> + * for it in the lsmblob. >>> */ >>> void __init security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count, >>> - char *lsm) >>> + struct lsm_id *lsmid) >>> { >>> int i; >>> >> Could you add a WARN_ON(!lsmid->slot || !lsmid->name) here? > > Yes. That's reasonable. I guess my above comment makes sense if lsmid->slot should not be zero but LSMBLOB_NOT_NEEDED instead, otherwise the Landlock lsmid would throw a warning. > >> >> >>> + if (lsmid->slot == LSMBLOB_NEEDED) { >>> + if (lsm_slot >= LSMBLOB_ENTRIES) >>> + panic("%s Too many LSMs registered.\n", __func__); >>> + lsmid->slot = lsm_slot++; >>> + init_debug("%s assigned lsmblob slot %d\n", lsmid->lsm, >>> + lsmid->slot); >>> + } >>> + >>> for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { >>> - hooks[i].lsm = lsm; >>> + hooks[i].lsmid = lsmid; >>> hlist_add_tail_rcu(&hooks[i].list, hooks[i].head); >>> } >>> > -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-26 9:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 111+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top [not found] <20210513200807.15910-1-casey.ref@schaufler-ca.com> 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 00/25] LSM: Module stacking for AppArmor Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 01/25] LSM: Infrastructure management of the sock security Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 02/25] LSM: Add the lsmblob data structure Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-22 8:39 ` Mickaël Salaün 2021-05-22 8:39 ` Mickaël Salaün 2021-05-25 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 23:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-26 9:53 ` Mickaël Salaün [this message] 2021-05-26 9:53 ` Mickaël Salaün 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 03/25] LSM: provide lsm name and id slot mappings Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:00 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:00 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 04/25] IMA: avoid label collisions with stacked LSMs Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:00 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:00 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 05/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_audit_rule_match Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 06/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_kernel_act_as Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 07/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secctx_to_secid Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:03 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:03 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 08/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:05 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:05 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:18 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 09/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_ipc_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 10/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_task_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 11/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_inode_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 12/25] LSM: Use lsmblob in security_cred_getsecid Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 13/25] IMA: Change internal interfaces to use lsmblobs Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 14/25] LSM: Specify which LSM to display Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:23 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:23 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-17 19:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-17 19:52 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 15/25] LSM: Ensure the correct LSM context releaser Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 16/25] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_secid_to_secctx Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` [PATCH v26 17/25] LSM: Use lsmcontext in security_inode_getsecctx Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:07 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-14 19:24 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-14 19:24 ` Kees Cook 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 18/25] LSM: security_secid_to_secctx in netlink netfilter Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 19/25] NET: Store LSM netlabel data in a lsmblob Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 20/25] LSM: Verify LSM display sanity in binder Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 21/25] audit: add support for non-syscall auxiliary records Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 22/25] Audit: Add new record for multiple process LSM attributes Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 20:19 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-21 21:26 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-21 21:26 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-21 22:05 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-21 22:05 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-22 2:20 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-22 2:20 ` Paul Moore 2021-05-22 12:58 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-22 12:58 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-23 2:00 ` Steve Grubb 2021-05-24 15:53 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-24 16:06 ` Steve Grubb 2021-05-25 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 16:26 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 17:28 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 17:28 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 18:23 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-25 18:23 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-25 19:06 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 19:06 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 20:08 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-25 20:08 ` Richard Guy Briggs 2021-05-25 22:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-25 22:46 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 23/25] Audit: Add a new record for multiple object " Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 24/25] LSM: Add /proc attr entry for full LSM context Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` [PATCH v26 25/25] AppArmor: Remove the exclusive flag Casey Schaufler 2021-05-13 20:08 ` Casey Schaufler
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=53108f3e-3297-3d8b-cba9-2b12ca30d666@digikod.net \ --to=mic@digikod.net \ --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=casey.schaufler@intel.com \ --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \ --cc=jmorris@namei.org \ --cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \ --cc=keescook@chromium.org \ --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \ --cc=penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp \ --cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \ --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.