Re: [PATCH RFC v15 12/21] security: add security_bdev_setintegrity() hook

[Jarkko Sakkinen]

On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:28 AM EET, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 1:00 AM EET, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 2024 Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > This patch introduces a new hook to save block device's integrity
> > > data. For example, for dm-verity, LSMs can use this hook to save
> > > the roothash signature of a dm-verity into the security blob,
> > > and LSMs can make access decisions based on the data inside
> > > the signature, like the signer certificate.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > --
> > > v1-v14:
> > >   + Not present
> > > 
> > > v15:
> > >   + Introduced
> > > 
> > > ---
> > >  include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h |  2 ++
> > >  include/linux/security.h      | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >  security/security.c           | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
> >
> > I'm not sure why you made this a separate patch, help?  If there is
> > no significant reason why this is separate, please squash it together
> > with patch 11/21.
>
> Off-topic: it is weird to have *RFC* patch set at v15.
>
> RFC by de-facto is something that can be safely ignored if you don't
> have bandwidth. 15 versions of anything that can be safely ignored
> is by definition spamming :-) I mean just conceptually.
>
> So does the RFC still hold or what the heck is going on with this one?
>
> Haven't followed for some time now...

I mean if this RFC trend continues I'll just put auto-filter for this
thread to put straight to the bin.  There's enough non-RFC patch sets
to review.

BR, Jarkko