Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:32:51 +0200 | From | "Ahmed S. Darwish" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH -v8 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter |
| |
Hi James,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > > Handle Andrew's concerns: > > - Use __init and __initdata in appropriate places. > > - Do not rely upon dummy_ops layout, use C99 initializations. > > - Use DEFINE_SPINLOCK instead of dynamic initialization. > > The spinlock is not needed now, if security_module_enable() can only be > called during boot via an initcall. >
Will do.
Would you mind answering my confusions below so I can do the change with good understanding ?
I see preempt_disable() before calling security and vfs_caches init, but what will prevent two processors/cores from executing security_module_enable() concurrently (thus possibly corrupting chosen_lsm) ? security_module_enable() is also now used in __init init_smk_fs().
Or the init path got executed serially ?
Thank you,
-- Ahmed S. Darwish Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
| |