[GIT PULL] Security subsystem updates for 4.14
keescook at chromium.org
Thu Sep 14 21:09:23 UTC 2017
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 9:32 PM, James Morris <jmorris at namei.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, Paul Moore wrote:
>> > This is also why I tend to prefer getting multiple branches for
>> > independent things.
>> Is it time to start sending pull request for each LSM and thing under
>> security/ directly? I'm not sure I have a strong preference either
>> way, I just don't want to see the SELinux changes ignored during the
>> merge window.
> They won't be ignored, we just need to get this issue resolved now and
> figure out how to implement multiple branches in the security tree.
> Looking at other git repos, the x86 folk have multiple branches.
Yeah, the x86 approach is what inspired my tree layout.
> One option for me would be to publish the trees I pull from as branches
> along side mine, with 'next' being a merge of all of directly applied
> patchsets and those ready for Linus to pull as one.
> So, branches in
> might be:
> next-selinux (Paul's next branch)
> next-apparmor (JJ's next branch)
> next-integrity (Mimi's)
> next-tpm (Jarkko's)
> next (merge all of the above to here)
> That way, we have a coherent 'next' branch for people to develop against
> and to push to Linus, but he can pull individual branches feeding into it
> if something is broken in one of them.
> Does that sound useful?
This is what I do with the KSPP tree (since it has a few unrelated
things in it), but you run the risk of getting too fine-grain and
creating dependencies between trees (e.g. adding a new hook that two
LSMs implement means either they depend on each other or both depend
on some third "core" tree).
How separable are the patches, normally?
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
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive