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.mor...@oracle.com> >> 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.
