[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRO-weTJPGcrkgntFLG3RPRCUvHh9m+uduDN+q4hzyhGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 15:57:49 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
bp@...en8.de, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, peterz@...radead.org, nathan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code
On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:17 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> With LSMs using static calls, early_lsm_init needs to wait for setup_arch
> for architecture specific functionality which includes jump tables and
> static calls to be initialized.
>
> This only affects "early LSMs" i.e. only lockdown when
> CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN_LSM_EARLY is set.
>
> Fixes: 2732ad5ecd5b ("lsm: replace indirect LSM hook calls with static calls")
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
> ---
> init/main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Considering the problems we've had, I'd like to hear more about how
you've tested this and I'd like to see some reviews/ACKs from some
arch people too.
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index 206acdde51f5..a0e3f3c720e6 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -922,8 +922,8 @@ void start_kernel(void)
> boot_cpu_init();
> page_address_init();
> pr_notice("%s", linux_banner);
> - early_security_init();
> setup_arch(&command_line);
> + early_security_init();
> setup_boot_config();
> setup_command_line(command_line);
> setup_nr_cpu_ids();
> --
> 2.46.0.rc2.264.g509ed76dc8-goog
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists