From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:41497 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754829AbdKIN3E (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Nov 2017 08:29:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 00:28:40 +1100 (AEDT) From: James Morris To: Mimi Zohar cc: Stephen Rothwell , David Howells , linux-integrity , Matthew Garrett , linux-security-module Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ima: require secure_boot rules in lockdown mode In-Reply-To: <1510196818.4484.120.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <1509382827.3583.143.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1508774387.3639.128.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <750.1509378910@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <3691.1509383138@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1509385178.3583.159.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1510173982.4484.30.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171109075334.1809f4cc@canb.auug.org.au> <1510175047.4484.35.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171109102635.7691281d@canb.auug.org.au> <1510196818.4484.120.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-integrity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 8 Nov 2017, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > So since those patches are now in James tree, you should drop them from > > the integrity tree. > > Ok, I had been planning on sending an independent pull request to > Linus, as requested. That was not requested. Linus wants separate branches to pull from, but this does not mean separate trees. The x86 and some other subsystems use separate branches in the same tree, which is the model we're now using generally with the security subsystem. It's _also_ possible to send pull requests independently (which is what the SELinux and AppArmor maintainers decided to do), although that was not what Linus was asking for. It's up to you if you want to send pull requests directly to Linus or continue to merge via the security tree. - James -- James Morris