From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com (Mimi Zohar) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:36:01 -0400 Subject: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions In-Reply-To: <9ae2397b-ad11-d437-d0f4-4e4f0dff4ce9@canonical.com> References: <1e91f8e10ce76d3208239b6b5899aab76d1543ff.1528743633.git.joe@perches.com> <9ae2397b-ad11-d437-d0f4-4e4f0dff4ce9@canonical.com> Message-ID: <1528839361.3874.10.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:29 -0700, John Johansen wrote: > On 06/12/2018 02:12 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 4:32 PM, James Morris wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> > >>> If you want to break this up by security module I would take > >>> the Smack part as soon as James does the tree update. If James > >>> wants to take the whole thing at once you can add my: > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Casey Schaufler > >>> > >>> for the Smack changes. > >> > >> It's probably simplest for me to take them as one patch. > > > > I would prefer if the SELinux changes were split into a separate > > patch. I'm guessing John would probably want the same for the > > AppArmor patches, but take his work for it, not mine. > > yes that would be preferred Agreed > > > > > Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these > > patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first > > one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during > > the merge window. Could you split your patches up from now on please? > > > > yeah splitting patches at subsystem boundaries is highly recommended. Agreed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html