On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:24 PM Alice Ryhl aliceryhl@google.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 6:11 PM Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 1:04 PM Miguel Ojeda miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 5:56 PM Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com wrote:
Thanks Alice. Would you like me to pull this in via the LSM tree with the associated LSM changes, or would you prefer to do this some other way?
I'm going to merge this into lsm/dev for now so that we fix the issue in linux-next, but I'm happy to drop it or do something else, let me know.
Christian has the VFS side, and both are needed for this -- do you mean you will cross-merge vfs' branch too?
I think our last emails crossed paths. I'm not going to merge this via the LSM tree as we don't have the Rust security.c helpers. Ideally it would have been better to have the Rust LSM/security helpers in the LSM tree for reasons like this, but it looks like it's too late for that now.
If Christian is okay with rewriting the vfs.rust.file tree, we can drop commit 94d356c0335f ("rust: security: add abstraction for secctx") from there and I'll update it and send it for inclusion in the LSM tree instead. I'll need to drop the piece that ties together `struct cred` and `secctx` from the patch, but I can follow up with a small patch for that for the 6.14 merge window.
I can only guess at what Chrisitian wants to do, but my guess is that he isn't going to be very excited about rewriting a VFS tree at this stage ... which is very understandable as far as I'm concerned.
I wouldn't worry too much about this right now, I'm going to plan on holding Casey's patchset in a staging area until after the upcoming merge window.