lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization
From
Date
On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 13:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't recall why "integrity" is on the security_initcall, while both
> > IMA and EVM are on the late_initcall().
>
> It's because integrity needs to have a VFS buffer allocated extremely
> early, so it used the security init to do it. While it's not an LSM,
> it does use this part of LSM infrastructure. I didn't see an obvious
> alternative at the time, but now that I think about it, maybe just a
> simple postcore_initcall() would work?

I was questioning why the "security_initcall", which is called after
the late_initcall.  Moving it to the postcore_initcall, before the
late_initcall, sounds right.

Mimi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-05 15:15    [W:0.070 / U:59.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site