Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC)

[PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2020-12-03
[PATCH v12 3/3] selftest/interpreter: Add tests for trusted_for(2) policies · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2020-12-03
[PATCH v12 1/3] fs: Add trusted_for(2) syscall implementation and related sysctl · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2020-12-03
[PATCH v12 2/3] arch: Wire up trusted_for(2) · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2020-12-03
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · bauen1 <hidden> · 2021-04-09
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2021-04-09
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Kees Cook <hidden> · 2021-10-06
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2021-10-07
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> · 2021-10-07
Re: [PATCH v12 0/3] Add trusted_for(2) (was O_MAYEXEC) · Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> · 2021-10-07

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2021-10-06 22:03:24
Also in: linux-fsdevel, linux-integrity, linux-security-module, lkml

On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:15:42PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:

There was no new reviews, probably because the FS maintainers were busy,
and I was focused on Landlock (which is now in -next), but I plan to
send a new patch series for trusted_for(2) soon.

Hi!

Did this ever happen? It looks like it's in good shape, and I think it's
a nice building block for userspace to have. Are you able to rebase and
re-send this?

I've tended to aim these things at akpm if Al gets busy. (And since
you've had past review from Al, that should be hopefully sufficient.)

Thanks for chasing this!

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook

`h`	back out one level
`j`	next message in thread
`k`	previous message in thread
`l`	drill in
`Esc`	close help / fold thread tree
`?`	toggle this help