[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YhzRvhsOPxrKHzq9@pevik>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 14:44:30 +0100
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
To: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, dvyukov@...gle.com,
ebiggers@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, serge@...lyn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] integrity: double check iint_cache was initialized
Hi Mimi, all,
> Hi Petr, Casey,
> On Thu, 2022-02-24 at 10:51 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 2/24/2022 9:42 AM, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > It was always my expectation, which appears to have been poorly
> > communicated, that "making integrity an LSM" meant using the LSM
> > hook infrastructure. Just adding "integrity" to lsm= doesn't make
> > it an LSM to my mind.
> Agreed. The actual commit that introduced the change was 3d6e5f6dcf65
> ("LSM: Convert security_initcall() into DEFINE_LSM()").
I wonder whether we can improve things now.
Kind regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists