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=-17.9 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 B180EC388F9 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 20:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F37822280 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 20:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.microsoft.com header.i=@linux.microsoft.com header.b="oyRIDQr2" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725833AbgKBUi7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 15:38:59 -0500 Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]:47780 "EHLO linux.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726794AbgKBUiO (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 15:38:14 -0500 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 1337E20B4905; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:38:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 1337E20B4905 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1604349493; bh=A9puWUBw2GZStdPfUDTSMK8RC4dl3Ke5HWaaHfg3h+0=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=oyRIDQr2OzuPOugckBG7GYNCRXLddmjvNPH+24jtF64hgJV8+G3SDUIszswyftiiQ 2m9l44GztdRqgIE8mQJN+DNef0rQCxRANSNyotZl73gNK7xt78sPeRsZ1Tato4o7Rn NFcwZUeuryt1kfBUZa0QH98UJC0kx4EvoHhsLH3A= Subject: Re: [RFC] Finding the right target branch for patches that span IMA and SeLinux To: Mimi Zohar , Paul Moore Cc: 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> <9195fd7a-a5c5-8588-d33c-772d2f530032@linux.microsoft.com> <66678394f824be5367cc0e1745f1bda98b436550.camel@linux.ibm.com> From: Tushar Sugandhi Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 12:38:12 -0800 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: <66678394f824be5367cc0e1745f1bda98b436550.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org On 2020-11-02 8:35 a.m., Mimi Zohar wrote: > On Sat, 2020-10-31 at 20:08 -0700, Tushar Sugandhi wrote: >> 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. > > Unless there was a compelling reason for basing it on the SELinux > branch, I asked that you base the changes on v5.10.0-rc1 (or later), > which has nothing to do with the SELinux branch. Once this patch set > is reviewed and ready to be upstreamed, a topic branch will be created > containing at least the IMA patches. The decision as to how the the > SELinux patch will be upstreamed will be made at that point. That > discussion will be between Paul and me. > Sincere apologies Mimi. We misunderstood your feedback when you mentioned - "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." We believed you were recommending selinux repo as there were exactly two patches present in the selinux/next branch after the tag v5.10-rc1. Anyways - we tried applying the patches to - repo: https://github.com/torvalds/linux branch: master tag: v5.10-rc1 and they get applied cleanly and are working fine. We will wait for feedback on the v5 patch from you/Paul/Stephen, address those, and then base v6 of the series to tarvolds/master branch on v5.10-rc1 (or later). Does it sound ok? Here is the v5 of the series we published yesterday. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-integrity/list/?series=375103 Thanks, Tushar > thanks, > > Mimi >