From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jmorris@namei.org (James Morris) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 08:56:18 +1000 (AEST) Subject: [PATCH v2] LSM: Convert security_hook_heads into explicit array of struct list_head In-Reply-To: <27e537cc-1d1c-1a48-d3fd-a04921f7b620@huawei.com> References: <1495883858-3336-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <1496003387-3184-1-git-send-email-penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <27e537cc-1d1c-1a48-d3fd-a04921f7b620@huawei.com> Message-ID: To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-security-module.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 May 2017, Igor Stoppa wrote: > On 30/05/17 13:32, James Morris wrote: > > > This seems like pointless churn in security-critical code in anticipation > > of features which are still in development and may not be adopted. > > > > Is there a compelling reason to merge this now? (And I don't mean worrying > > about non-existent compliers). > > I propose to take this patch as part of those I will be submitting. > It took me some unplanned time to add support for hardened user copy, > but now it's done - at least to a point that I can test it without failures. > > So I'm back on track to provide an example of the smalloc api and I can > also use Tetsuo's work (thanks again, btw). > This patch would be sandwiched between the smalloc ones and the LSM rework. > > It can get merged when the rest (hopefully) is merged. > > But I have a more prosaic question: since smalloc is affecting the > memory subsystem, can it still be merged through the security tree? It needs acks from the maintainers of the affected subsystems. -- James Morris -- 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