Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8

From: Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SafeSetID LSM changes for v5.8
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:28:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ-EccN3c73xOXXy+C3UEt0=jiNMaKb2Ps9Bv1ucZnXBeW28VA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wipG5Wpfydn7YUbahDV_G0GZqeUqEWax_mSLBuVeiT0yg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:20 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:12 PM Micah Morton <mortonm@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > That said I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line for which kinds
> > of changes really should be required to have bake time in -next. If
> > you think this is one of those cases, we can hold off on this until we
> > have some bake time for v5.9.
>
> It's merged, but in general the rule for "bake in -next" should be
> absolutely everything.
>
> The only exception is just pure and plain fixes.

Sounds good, that makes it pretty clear.

Thanks

>
> This SafeSetID change should in fact have been there for two different
> reasons: not only was it a new feature rather than a fix (in
> linux-next just for testing), it was one that crossed subsystem
> borders (should be in linux-next just for cross-subsystem testing). It
> touched files that very much aren't touched by just you.
>
> "Looks obvious" has nothing to do with avoiding linux-next.
>
> I suspect most of the bugs we have tend to be in code that "looked
> obvious" to somebody.
>
>                      Linus