Re: [PATCH v15 00/11] LSM: Three basic syscalls

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 6:07 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 4:57 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Add three system calls for the Linux Security Module ABI ...
>
> First off, a big thank you to Casey who took it upon himself to turn
> my pseudo-code syscall suggestion into a proper patchset and saw it
> through 15 revisions.  Thanks also go out to everyone that has helped
> review and comment on this effort; I know everyone is busy, but these
> reviews are important.
>
> I'm happy to say that I think we're in a good place with this revision
> of the LSM syscall patchset.  I only see two outstanding issues, and
> neither of those are bugs/showstoppers that affect the API, they are
> simply areas where the implementation could be improved.  With the
> understanding that Casey is busy for the rest of the month, and my
> desire to make sure this patchset gets a full dev cycle in linux-next,
> I'm going to suggest merging this into the lsm/next-queue branch soon
> (likely tomorrow) in preparation for merging it into lsm/next once the
> upcoming merge window closes.  Those who want to help improve the
> implementation, as suggested in the feedback on this revision or
> otherwise, are welcome to submit patches against the lsm/next-queue
> branch and I will merge them into that branch once they pass review.
>
> If I don't hear any objections I'll plan on merging this patchset
> tomorrow, I'll send a follow-up reply to this email when it's done.

Since it's been *almost* a full 24 hours and no objections I went
ahead and merged this patchset into lsm/next-queue with the intention
of bringing them into lsm/next after the upcoming merge window closes.
For those of you who have suggested changes, please feel free to
submit patches against the lsm/next-queue branch and we can get them
queued up along with these patches.

Thanks everyone!

-- 
paul-moore.com