Re: regression in 4.14-rc2 caused by apparmor: add base infastructure for socket mediation

[John Johansen]

On 10/26/2017 12:06 PM, James Morris wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:54 PM, James Morris <james.l.morris@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm *very* unhappy with the security layer as is
>>>
>>> What are you unhappy with?
>>
>> We had two big _fundamental_ problems this merge window:
>>
>>  - untested code that clearly didn't do what it claimed it did, and
>> which caused me to not even accept the main pull request
>>
>>  - apparmor code that had a regression, where it took three weeks for
>> that regression to be escalated to me simply because the developer was
>> denying the regression.
>>
>> Tell me why I *shouldn't* be unhappy with the security layer?
>>
>> I shouldn't be in the situation where I start reviewing the code and
>> go "that can't be right".
>>
>> And I *definitely* shouldn't be in the situation where I need to come
>> in three weeks later and tell people what a regression is!
> 
> Agreed on both counts, and sorry for these problems.
> 

I am fine with doing either, what ever Linus finds works best for
him. The only reason I went to the direct pull request for apparmor
was that as I as understood it Linus wanted the larger LSM pull
requests separated out so that it was easier for him to see what was
in them.

And again sorry, I screwed up, it should not have happened, my
perspective was incorrect and I know I need to make it right.