Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] ocfs2: Switch to security_inode_init_security()

On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:33 AM Roberto Sassu
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 12:21 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 3:56 AM Roberto Sassu
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:41 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > In preparation for removing security_old_inode_init_security(), switch to
> > > > security_inode_init_security().
> > > >
> > > > Extend the existing ocfs2_initxattrs() to take the
> > > > ocfs2_security_xattr_info structure from fs_info, and populate the
> > > > name/value/len triple with the first xattr provided by LSMs.
> > >
> > > Hi Mark, Joel, Joseph
> > >
> > > some time ago I sent this patch set to switch to the newer
> > > function security_inode_init_security(). Almost all the other parts of
> > > this patch set have been reviewed, and the patch set itself should be
> > > ready to be merged.
> > >
> > > I kindly ask if you could have a look at this patch and give your
> > > Reviewed-by, so that Paul could take the patch set.
> >
> > I've been pushing to clean up some of the LSM interfaces to try and
> > simplify things and remove as many special cases as possible,
> > Roberto's work in this patchset is part of that.  I would really
> > appreciate it if the vfs/ocfs2 folks could give patch 2/6 a quick look
> > to make sure you are okay with the changes.
> >
> > I realize that the various end-of-year holidays tend to slow things
> > down a bit, but this patchset has been on the lists for over a month
> > now; if I don't hear anything in the next week or two I'll assume you
> > folks are okay with these patches ...
>
> Hi Paul
>
> is this patch set going to land in 6.3?

Hi Roberto,

I had really hoped the vfs/ocfs2 folks would have commented on this by
now, but it's been over two months now with no comments that I can see
so I think we have to do it ourselves via the LSM tree.  It's
obviously too late for the upcoming merge window, so no v6.3, but I
think we can merge it *after* the upcoming merge window closes,
assuming we get ACKs from Mimi on the EVM bits (I still need to review
it too, but I'm not expecting anything too bad).

-- 
paul-moore.com