Re: [-next PATCH] security: use octal not symbolic permissions

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:

quoted

Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these
patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first
one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during
the merge window.  Could you split your patches up from now on please?

Sorry. No.  Merge conflicts are inherent in this system.

Yes, merge conflicts are inherent in this system when one makes a
single change which impacts multiple subsystems, e.g. changing a core
kernel function which is called by multiple subsystems.  However, that
isn't what this patch does, it makes a number of self-contained
changes across multiple subsystems; there are no cross-subsystem
dependencies in this patch.  You are increasing the likelihood of
conflicts for no good reason; that is why I'm asking you to split this
patch and others like it.

No.  History shows with high certainty that splitting
patches like this across multiple subsystems of a primary
subsystem means that the entire patchset is not completely
applied.

I think that is due more to a lack of effort on the part of the patch
author to keep pushing the individual patches.

It's _much_ simpler and provides a generic mechanism to
get the entire patch applied to send a single patch to the
top level subsystem maintainer.

I understand it is simpler for you, but it is more difficult for everyone else.

Further, where the LSMs are concerned, there is no "top level
subsystem maintainer" anymore.  SELinux and AppArmor send pull
requests directly to Linus.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com