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

Fan Wu
2024-03-20T20:31:07Z

On 3/20/2024 1:31 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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@linux.microsoft.com> 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@linux.microsoft.com>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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

Sorry about the confusion with the RFC tag – I wasn't fully aware of its
conventional meaning and how it's perceived in terms of importance and
urgency. Point taken, and I'll make sure to remove the RFC tag for
future submissions. Definitely not my intention to clog up the workflow
or seem like I'm spamming.

-Fan