[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1810030716170.23596@namei.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 07:16:21 +1000 (AEST)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
"Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v4 07/32] LSM: Convert security_initcall()
into DEFINE_LSM()
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> Instead of using argument-based initializers, switch to defining the
> contents of struct lsm_info on a per-LSM basis. This also drops
> the final use of the now inaccurate "initcall" naming.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>
Reviewed-by: James Morris <james.morris@...rosoft.com>
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists