[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKM_goC2519EXZu7Bh0VoW8jQeR=AJ0XovUPe4_635XNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 13:49:09 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
LSM <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.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?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists