From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2501FC47089 for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 04:33:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9584610CB for ; Thu, 27 May 2021 04:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229751AbhE0Ees (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 00:34:48 -0400 Received: from namei.org ([65.99.196.166]:50974 "EHLO mail.namei.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229579AbhE0Eer (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 May 2021 00:34:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.namei.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7A544A2; Thu, 27 May 2021 04:28:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 14:28:11 +1000 (AEST) From: James Morris To: Ondrej Mosnacek cc: Michael Ellerman , Linux Security Module list , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Stephen Smalley , SElinux list , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux FS Devel , bpf , network dev , Linux kernel mailing list , Casey Schaufler , Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdown,selinux: avoid bogus SELinux lockdown permission checks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3ad4fb7f-99f3-fa71-fdb2-59db751c7e2b@namei.org> References: <20210517092006.803332-1-omosnace@redhat.com> <87o8d9k4ln.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wed, 26 May 2021, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote: > Thanks, Michael! > > James/Paul, is there anything blocking this patch from being merged? > Especially the BPF case is causing real trouble for people and the > only workaround is to broadly allow lockdown::confidentiality in the > policy. It would be good to see more signoffs/reviews, especially from Paul, but he is busy with the io_uring stuff. Let's see if anyone else can look at this in the next couple of days. -- James Morris