On Sun, 12 May 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > My guess is that you are right and > > any *significant* changes to the LSM layer itself, e.g. security/*, is > > best sent via James' tree. For smaller changes to the LSM layer I > > think it's okay if they go in via an individual LSM tree so long as > > all the other LSMs agree-on/ack the changes; which pretty much fits > > what we've been doing for some time now and it seems to work well > > enough. > > Yeah, I think that's the sane model. And I think it's mostly been working.
New LSMs also need to be guided in, as part of a community effort. -- James Morris <jmor...@namei.org>