* Re: Module stacking next steps
[not found] <5536F260.3080201@schaufler-ca.com>
@ 2015-04-30 1:55 ` James Morris
2015-04-30 2:02 ` Kees Cook
2015-04-30 2:45 ` John Johansen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2015-04-30 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Casey Schaufler, Stephen Smalley, John Johansen, Kees Cook, Paul Moore
Cc: LSM, James Morris, linux-kernel
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> procedure would you like to follow?
What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
Any objections or concerns?
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Module stacking next steps
2015-04-30 1:55 ` Module stacking next steps James Morris
@ 2015-04-30 2:02 ` Kees Cook
2015-04-30 2:45 ` John Johansen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Kees Cook @ 2015-04-30 2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris
Cc: Casey Schaufler, Stephen Smalley, John Johansen, Paul Moore, LSM,
James Morris, linux-kernel
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:55:51AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
> >
> > James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> > the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> > procedure would you like to follow?
>
> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
At the very worst, I see it as a very nice clean up.
At best, I see it as extremely useful for the things I want to do, with
various "minor" LSM working together.
> Any objections or concerns?
As far as I'm concerned, I'm very happy with it.
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook @outflux.net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Module stacking next steps
2015-04-30 1:55 ` Module stacking next steps James Morris
2015-04-30 2:02 ` Kees Cook
@ 2015-04-30 2:45 ` John Johansen
2015-04-30 11:20 ` James Morris
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Johansen @ 2015-04-30 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris, Casey Schaufler, Stephen Smalley, Kees Cook, Paul Moore
Cc: LSM, James Morris, linux-kernel
On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>
>>
>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>> procedure would you like to follow?
>
> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>
> Any objections or concerns?
>
No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
this land.
I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Module stacking next steps
2015-04-30 2:45 ` John Johansen
@ 2015-04-30 11:20 ` James Morris
2015-04-30 14:48 ` Casey Schaufler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2015-04-30 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Johansen
Cc: Casey Schaufler, Stephen Smalley, Kees Cook, Paul Moore, LSM,
James Morris, linux-kernel
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
> >> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
> >> procedure would you like to follow?
> >
> > What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
> > useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
> >
> > Any objections or concerns?
> >
> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
> this land.
>
> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@namei.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Module stacking next steps
2015-04-30 11:20 ` James Morris
@ 2015-04-30 14:48 ` Casey Schaufler
2015-04-30 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2015-04-30 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris, John Johansen
Cc: Stephen Smalley, Kees Cook, Paul Moore, LSM, James Morris,
linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler
On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>
>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>
>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>
>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>
>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>> this land.
>>
>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
hate to have to do it more often than I have to.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Module stacking next steps
2015-04-30 14:48 ` Casey Schaufler
@ 2015-04-30 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Casey Schaufler @ 2015-04-30 15:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris, John Johansen
Cc: Stephen Smalley, Kees Cook, Paul Moore, LSM, James Morris,
linux-kernel, Casey Schaufler
On 4/30/2015 7:48 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through
>>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What
>>>>> procedure would you like to follow?
>>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as
>>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in?
>>>>
>>>> Any objections or concerns?
>>>>
>>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing
>>> this land.
>>>
>>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this
>>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...)
>> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check.
> Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will
> be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc.
> Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd
> hate to have to do it more often than I have to.
Whoops! I read mail addressed directly to me before I read what goes
just to lists. I see that security-next is updated. I will have the update
ready as quickly as possible. Thank you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-04-30 15:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <5536F260.3080201@schaufler-ca.com>
2015-04-30 1:55 ` Module stacking next steps James Morris
2015-04-30 2:02 ` Kees Cook
2015-04-30 2:45 ` John Johansen
2015-04-30 11:20 ` James Morris
2015-04-30 14:48 ` Casey Schaufler
2015-04-30 15:10 ` Casey Schaufler
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).