| Message ID | 20200802215903.91936-1-mic@digikod.net |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Landlock LSM | expand |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/08/2020 21:16, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: > > >> From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > >> > > >> Move management of the superblock->sb_security blob out > > >> of the individual security modules and into the security > > >> infrastructure. Instead of allocating the blobs from within > > >> the modules the modules tell the infrastructure how much > > >> space is required, and the space is allocated there. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> > > >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > > >> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> > > >> Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> > > >> Reviewed-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> > > >> Link: > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190829232935.7099-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com > > >> --- > > >> > > >> Changes since v17: > > >> * Rebase the original LSM stacking patch from v5.3 to v5.7: I fixed some > > >> diff conflicts caused by code moves and function renames in > > >> selinux/include/objsec.h and selinux/hooks.c . I checked that it > > >> builds but I didn't test the changes for SELinux nor SMACK. > > > > > > You shouldn't retain Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by lines from an earlier > > > patch if you made non-trivial changes to it (even more so if you didn't > > > test them). > > > > I think I made trivial changes according to the original patch. But > > without reply from other people with Signed-off-by or Reviewed-by > > (Casey, Kees, John), I'll remove them. I guess you don't want your > > Reviewed-by to be kept, so I'll remove it, except if you want to review > > this patch (or the modified part). > > At the very least your Reviewed-by line is wrong - yours should be > Signed-off-by because the patch went through you and you modified it. > I'll try to take a look as time permits but FYI you should this > address (already updated in MAINTAINERS) going forward. I finally got around to reviewing your updated patch. You can drop the old line and add: Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>
On 04/09/2020 16:06, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM Stephen Smalley > <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2020 21:16, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>>> On 8/2/20 5:58 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote: >>>>> From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>>>> >>>>> Move management of the superblock->sb_security blob out >>>>> of the individual security modules and into the security >>>>> infrastructure. Instead of allocating the blobs from within >>>>> the modules the modules tell the infrastructure how much >>>>> space is required, and the space is allocated there. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>>>> Reviewed-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> >>>>> Link: >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190829232935.7099-2-casey@schaufler-ca.com >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Changes since v17: >>>>> * Rebase the original LSM stacking patch from v5.3 to v5.7: I fixed some >>>>> diff conflicts caused by code moves and function renames in >>>>> selinux/include/objsec.h and selinux/hooks.c . I checked that it >>>>> builds but I didn't test the changes for SELinux nor SMACK. >>>> >>>> You shouldn't retain Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by lines from an earlier >>>> patch if you made non-trivial changes to it (even more so if you didn't >>>> test them). >>> >>> I think I made trivial changes according to the original patch. But >>> without reply from other people with Signed-off-by or Reviewed-by >>> (Casey, Kees, John), I'll remove them. I guess you don't want your >>> Reviewed-by to be kept, so I'll remove it, except if you want to review >>> this patch (or the modified part). >> >> At the very least your Reviewed-by line is wrong - yours should be >> Signed-off-by because the patch went through you and you modified it. >> I'll try to take a look as time permits but FYI you should this >> address (already updated in MAINTAINERS) going forward. > > I finally got around to reviewing your updated patch. You can drop > the old line and add: > Reviewed-by: Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com> > Thanks! I'll send a new series soon.