From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751990AbdJZUIG (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:08:06 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:43537 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751929AbdJZUIF (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:08:05 -0400 Subject: Re: regression in 4.14-rc2 caused by apparmor: add base infastructure for socket mediation To: James Morris , Linus Torvalds Cc: James Bottomley , Thorsten Leemhuis , Vlastimil Babka , Seth Arnold , linux-kernel References: <1507003338.3174.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1507007707.3082.16.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <5d57381f-e915-1b8f-7838-eba46ab89f34@suse.cz> <1508842981.3187.5.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <722a6eda-e834-30f8-bf57-ef6c596816f6@canonical.com> From: John Johansen Organization: Canonical Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:08:01 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/26/2017 12:06 PM, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:54 PM, James Morris 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! > > Agreed on both counts, and sorry for these problems. > I am fine with doing either, what ever Linus finds works best for him. The only reason I went to the direct pull request for apparmor was that as I as understood it Linus wanted the larger LSM pull requests separated out so that it was easier for him to see what was in them. And again sorry, I screwed up, it should not have happened, my perspective was incorrect and I know I need to make it right.