On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 12:25 PM Casey Schaufler <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/24/2025 3:18 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2025 Casey Schaufler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Refactor audit_log_task_context(), creating a new audit_log_subj_ctx(). > >> This is used in netlabel auditing to provide multiple subject security > >> contexts as necessary. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Casey Schaufler <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> include/linux/audit.h | 7 +++++++ > >> kernel/audit.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++------- > >> net/netlabel/netlabel_user.c | 9 +-------- > >> 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > Other than moving to the subject count supplied by the LSM > > initialization patchset previously mentioned, this looks fine to me. > > I'm perfectly willing to switch once the LSM initialization patch set > moves past RFC.
It's obviously your choice as to if/when you switch, but I'm trying to let you know that acceptance into the LSM tree is going to be dependent on that switch happening. The initialization patchset is still very much alive, and the next revision will not be an RFC. I'm simply waiting on some additional LSM specific reviews before posting the next revision so as to not burn out people from looking at multiple iterations. I've been told privately by at least one LSM maintainer that reviewing the changes in their code is on their todo list, but they have been slammed with other work at their job and haven't had the time to look at that patchset yet. I realize you don't have those issues anymore, but I suspect you are still sympathetic to those problems. If you're really anxious to continue work on this RIGHT NOW, you can simply base your patchset on top of the initialization patchset. Just make sure you mention in the cover letter what you are using as a base for the patchset. If that still doesn't offer any satisfaction, you can always incorporate the feedback that I made in v2 that was ignored in your v3 posting :-P -- paul-moore.com
