From: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:32:03 +1000 (AEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1709101419360.22614@namei.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhR2c1rC4--1Br0cx+3eALLdB8Oishw7wwcGwb1_3qN8+w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Paul Moore wrote:
> > This is also why I tend to prefer getting multiple branches for
> > independent things.
[...]
>
> Is it time to start sending pull request for each LSM and thing under
> security/ directly? I'm not sure I have a strong preference either
> way, I just don't want to see the SELinux changes ignored during the
> merge window.
They won't be ignored, we just need to get this issue resolved now and
figure out how to implement multiple branches in the security tree.
Looking at other git repos, the x86 folk have multiple branches.
One option for me would be to publish the trees I pull from as branches
along side mine, with 'next' being a merge of all of directly applied
patchsets and those ready for Linus to pull as one.
So, branches in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
might be:
next-selinux (Paul's next branch)
next-apparmor-next (JJ's next branch)
next-integrity-next (Mimi's)
next-tpm-next (Jarkko's)
[etc.]
next (merge all of the above to here)
That way, we have a coherent 'next' branch for people to develop against
and to push to Linus, but he can pull individual branches feeding into it
if something is broken in one of them.
Does that sound useful?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: jmorris@namei.org (James Morris)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2017 14:32:03 +1000 (AEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1709101419360.22614@namei.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhR2c1rC4--1Br0cx+3eALLdB8Oishw7wwcGwb1_3qN8+w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Paul Moore wrote:
> > This is also why I tend to prefer getting multiple branches for
> > independent things.
[...]
>
> Is it time to start sending pull request for each LSM and thing under
> security/ directly? I'm not sure I have a strong preference either
> way, I just don't want to see the SELinux changes ignored during the
> merge window.
They won't be ignored, we just need to get this issue resolved now and
figure out how to implement multiple branches in the security tree.
Looking at other git repos, the x86 folk have multiple branches.
One option for me would be to publish the trees I pull from as branches
along side mine, with 'next' being a merge of all of directly applied
patchsets and those ready for Linus to pull as one.
So, branches in
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security
might be:
next-selinux (Paul's next branch)
next-apparmor-next (JJ's next branch)
next-integrity-next (Mimi's)
next-tpm-next (Jarkko's)
[etc.]
next (merge all of the above to here)
That way, we have a coherent 'next' branch for people to develop against
and to push to Linus, but he can pull individual branches feeding into it
if something is broken in one of them.
Does that sound useful?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-10 4:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-04 10:29 [GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14 James Morris
2017-09-04 10:29 ` James Morris
2017-09-07 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-07 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-08 4:48 ` James Morris
2017-09-08 4:48 ` James Morris
2017-09-08 7:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-08 7:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-08 17:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-08 17:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-09-08 17:36 ` Paul Moore
2017-09-08 17:36 ` Paul Moore
2017-09-10 4:32 ` James Morris [this message]
2017-09-10 4:32 ` James Morris
2017-09-10 4:53 ` James Morris
2017-09-10 4:53 ` James Morris
2017-09-11 22:30 ` Paul Moore
2017-09-11 22:30 ` Paul Moore
2017-09-14 21:09 ` Kees Cook
2017-09-14 21:09 ` Kees Cook
2017-09-14 21:13 ` James Morris
2017-09-14 21:13 ` James Morris
2017-09-14 21:25 ` Kees Cook
2017-09-14 21:25 ` Kees Cook
2017-09-08 19:57 ` James Morris
2017-09-08 19:57 ` James Morris
2017-09-17 7:36 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-17 7:36 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-10 8:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-10 8:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-10 14:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-10 14:02 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-11 6:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-11 6:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-09-11 21:34 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-11 21:34 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-08 22:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-08 22:38 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-10 2:08 ` James Morris
2017-09-10 2:08 ` James Morris
2017-09-10 7:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-10 7:13 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-10 12:17 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-10 12:17 ` Theodore Ts'o
2017-09-10 6:46 ` Mimi Zohar
2017-09-10 6:46 ` Mimi Zohar
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=alpine.LRH.2.21.1709101419360.22614@namei.org \
--to=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/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: link
Be 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.