From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82D8C388F7 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6EF22280 for ; Sun, 1 Nov 2020 03:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="ppJUiqBk" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726295AbgKADIT (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Oct 2020 23:08:19 -0400 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:43564 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726195AbgKADIT (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Oct 2020 23:08:19 -0400 Received: from [192.168.86.21] (c-71-197-163-6.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [71.197.163.6]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B46620B4905; Sat, 31 Oct 2020 20:08:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 5B46620B4905 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1604200098; bh=vnpGRdofobwuxdcpYzqgJbbMDhOYuoItMQZu+EpDLyI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ppJUiqBkQ8D0qXAAsYljmFa/fQRc/nX0eYW7QLQ+aCSbNi6JMFGoSuEAy6jJipSP8 +v3gS44y+m6HmR0UYGnkcfaXpgxVFL1fhTZi2b/fTPGUWOzx/0/WOLzJ/pr/aWqzQB JNULC8U+0/rxZyypjMoNr5wQ1IURRpoiAIBuDQEk= Subject: Re: [RFC] Finding the right target branch for patches that span IMA and SeLinux To: Paul Moore Cc: Mimi Zohar , Stephen Smalley , SELinux , Tyler Hicks , Lakshmi Ramasubramanian , linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org References: <703ced1a-3a48-f29e-9141-af78415d8402@linux.microsoft.com> <2ea3d341-6299-ec40-b553-f9f59a36cfb3@linux.microsoft.com> From: Tushar Sugandhi Message-ID: <9195fd7a-a5c5-8588-d33c-772d2f530032@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 20:08:17 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org Hi Paul, On 2020-10-30 1:37 p.m., Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 12:43 PM Tushar Sugandhi > wrote: >>> Unless this patch set is specifically dependent on the two patches in >>> the SELinux tree beyond v5.10.0-rc1, please base it on v5.10.0-rc1. >> >> Thanks Mimi. We don't have dependencies on those two patches in SELinux >> tree. >> >> We'll base our changes on v5.10.0-rc1 in SELinux tree. >> >> Thanks for the quick response. > > I'm not as fast as Mimi, but I thought it might be worthwhile to > provide a bit more detail as to what I expect from SELinux kernel > submissions. I believe most other maintainers operate in a similar > manner, but I obviously can't speak for them. Thanks a lot for the detailed information Paul. Its very helpful, and we appreciate it. > > Unless there is an exception due to a previous discussion, I ask that > all SELinux kernel patches be based on either the selinux/next branch > or Linus' current tree. If your patch(set) applies cleanly to either > of those branches, and passes review, I'll merge it into the > selinux/next branch taking care of any merge conflicts that may arise. We will base on SeLinux -> next branch, as you/Mimi suggested. > If the merge is particularly tricky I may ask you to double check the > merge afterwards, but in my experience that is rare, most merge > conflicts are trivially resolved. > Based on our testing so far, there aren't any merge conflicts. But if the need arises, we'll do our best to help you resolve/review them. > In the case where a patch(set) being proposed for inclusion in the > SELinux tree has significant changes to another subsystem, I will ask > the affected subsystem's maintainer to review the patch(set). If the > other maintainers do not provide an ACK for the patch(set) I will not > merge the patches. If the other maintainers do not respond at all for > a few weeks, I may go ahead and merge the patch(set) anyway; that is a > decision made on a case-by-base basis. Mimi has been actively reviewing IMA side of the changes for this patch-set. > > If the patch(set) introduces new functionality I will ask you to add > or update an existing test in the selinux-testsuite. > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-testsuite > Lakshmi has written an SeLinux test for this feature, and it is currently being targeted for LTP repo. https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp We can work with you to also get it incorporated in selinux-testsuite. But the concern here is we may have to pull additional dependent scripts from LTP to selinux-testsuite to support our test. Could you please take a look at Lakshmi's SeLinux test, and guide us further on this? Here is the patch. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11804587/ > If the patch(set) introduces new, or changed, functionality I may ask > you to update The SELinux Notebook. > * https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux-notebook > Will do. Thanks. > Beyond the above, the general SELinux kernel tree process is > documented in the README.md found in selinux/main: > * https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pcmoore/selinux.git/tree/README.md > Thanks for the pointer. We'll go through the documentation. ~Tushar