From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>
Cc: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression in 4.14-rc2 caused by apparmor: add base infastructure for socket mediation
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:02:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy8n1TyJdWcy9jjsF7K7RwvaAc3_P7u8KFa-o7mziuc_g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.20.1710262054190.11949@localhost>
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:54 PM, James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> I'm *very* unhappy with the security layer as is
>
> What are you unhappy with?
We had two big _fundamental_ problems this merge window:
- untested code that clearly didn't do what it claimed it did, and
which caused me to not even accept the main pull request
- apparmor code that had a regression, where it took three weeks for
that regression to be escalated to me simply because the developer was
denying the regression.
Tell me why I *shouldn't* be unhappy with the security layer?
I shouldn't be in the situation where I start reviewing the code and
go "that can't be right".
And I *definitely* shouldn't be in the situation where I need to come
in three weeks later and tell people what a regression is!
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-26 19:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-03 4:02 regression in 4.14-rc2 caused by apparmor: add base infastructure for socket mediation James Bottomley
2017-10-03 4:11 ` John Johansen
2017-10-03 5:15 ` James Bottomley
2017-10-03 6:32 ` John Johansen
2017-10-03 6:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-03 7:17 ` John Johansen
2017-10-24 6:39 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2017-10-24 11:03 ` James Bottomley
2017-10-24 11:57 ` John Johansen
2017-10-26 17:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-10-26 18:54 ` James Morris
2017-10-26 19:02 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2017-10-26 19:06 ` James Morris
2017-10-26 20:08 ` John Johansen
2017-10-26 19:59 ` John Johansen
2017-10-24 15:19 ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-10-24 11:31 ` John Johansen
2017-10-26 9:11 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2017-10-26 18:13 ` Linus Torvalds
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=CA+55aFy8n1TyJdWcy9jjsF7K7RwvaAc3_P7u8KFa-o7mziuc_g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=regressions@leemhuis.info \
--cc=seth.arnold@canonical.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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 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).