First let me point out that reviewing patches is always a lot of work.
What you've done here by posting an entirely new 30-patch implementation
of tomoyo when (I hope) you're not even serious about that is to
basically tell us our time means nothing to you...
If you *are* serious about it, than to whatever extent I can, which
isn't very much, I say nack.
Like you say there appear to be no real remaining objections to the LSM,
only to the VFS part. You're going to try to get around the VFS
objections by not being an LSM?
Look right now TOMOYO is an out of tree patch. You want to get it in
tree. Don't be too hung up on getting it all in at once. Why not
push a subset of the patch without the vfs controls, which will help
to motivate the vfs controls you need? You can (1) keep a much smaller
out of tree patch with your implementation of the vfs controls for your
current customrs/installations, and/or (2) implement a temporary
non-pathname-based alternative, say using xattrs to tag files at setup
time - probably insufficient, but sufficient for people to play.
The smaller patch would also be easier to review.
We remember the history. On the one hand we feel for you, but on the
other hand many of us have gone through the same thing, and if you'll
notice Casey went through the same thing and persisted.
Right, at this point it's mainly a question of finding a way to upstream
tomoyo. (That's mainly *your* burden, but we do try to help :)
Yes, but he didn't say you could implement it in a way that offends the
affected maintainers. Nor did he say it's those maintainers'
responsibility to find you an acceptable solution. They are in fact
being very nice by offering you suggestions.
Also, isn't Miklos helping you to try and find an acceptable approach?
You're trying to make it sound like you've spent night and day for years
trying to work with the relevant people to come up with something
reasonable. Yet for instance in the thread
"vfs: add helpers to check r/o bind mounts"
(april 2) where iiuc two reasonable approaches are discussed, you don't
even take part.
I'm glad to hear that. Please keep trying.
Again let me point out there is a difference between saying "Linus said
we can have pathname-based access control, but you won't implement it
for me" and doing the hard work to come up with something reasonable.
I know you've tried a few times, but from what I've seen your impression
of the work you've put into it is far different from my impression of
it.
-serge
--
