[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Changes to SELinux in git-audit tree

On 12/13/05, Stephen Smalley <sds tycho nsa gov> wrote:
> I think that the SELinux maintainers (James and I) should be
> cc'd on every patch that touches the SELinux code when it is first
> submitted to these lists and every time it has to be updated to deal
> with changes upstream (one of the changes in behavior seems to have been
> due to an attempt to re-base the patch against more recent upstream code
> without re-submitting the revised patch for review), and none of the
> SELinux modifications should go to -mm without at least an Acked-by
> response from a SELinux maintainer.  On our end, we can try to be more
> responsive (but having an explicit cc for all patches that touch SELinux
> will help significantly).

Understood.  It was my (faulty) assumption that the SELinux
maintainers were more closely monitoring these two mailing lists.

As my recent patches in pursuit of LSPP certification of Linux
affected SELinux in addition to the audit subsystem, I should have
copied the SELinux maintainers to more directly keep them sync'ed with
the patches in evolution through myriad criticism.

My apologies, Stephen, and appreciation for your patience and review
of the submitted code.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]