Re: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions
From: Joe Perches
Date: Wed Jun 13 2018 - 15:30:38 EST
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 12:19 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these
> > > > > patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first
> > > > > one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during
> > > > > the merge window. Could you split your patches up from now on please?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. No. Merge conflicts are inherent in this system.
> > >
> > > Yes, merge conflicts are inherent in this system when one makes a
> > > single change which impacts multiple subsystems, e.g. changing a core
> > > kernel function which is called by multiple subsystems. However, that
> > > isn't what this patch does, it makes a number of self-contained
> > > changes across multiple subsystems; there are no cross-subsystem
> > > dependencies in this patch. You are increasing the likelihood of
> > > conflicts for no good reason; that is why I'm asking you to split this
> > > patch and others like it.
> > No. History shows with high certainty that splitting
> > patches like this across multiple subsystems of a primary
> > subsystem means that the entire patchset is not completely
> > applied.
> I think that is due more to a lack of effort on the part of the patch
> author to keep pushing the individual patches.
Nope. Try again.
Resistance to change and desire for status quo
occurs in many subsystems.
> > It's _much_ simpler and provides a generic mechanism to
> > get the entire patch applied to send a single patch to the
> > top level subsystem maintainer.
> I understand it is simpler for you, but it is more difficult for everyone else.
It's simply a matter of merge resolution being pushed down
where and when necessary.
See changes like the additions of the SPDX license tags.
> Further, where the LSMs are concerned, there is no "top level
> subsystem maintainer" anymore. SELinux and AppArmor send pull
> requests directly to Linus.
MAINTAINERS-M: James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx>
MAINTAINERS-M: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx>
MAINTAINERS-L: linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (suggested Cc:)
MAINTAINERS-T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jmorris/linux-security.git
If James is not approving or merging security/selinux or
security/tomoyo then perhaps the F: entries could be
augmented with appropriate X: entries or made specific
by using specific entries like: