[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQpX-nnBd_aKTg7BxaMqTUZ8juHUsQaQbA=hggePMtxcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 16:44:50 -0400
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, bp@...en8.de, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:20 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
...
> > For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues in my -next testing
> > with this patch applied but I only build architectures that build with
> > LLVM due to the nature of my work. If exposure to more architectures is
> > desirable, perhaps Guenter Roeck would not mind testing it with his
> > matrix?
>
> Thanks Nathan.
>
> I think the additional testing would be great, KP can you please work
> with Guenter to set this up?
Is that something you can do KP? I'm asking because I'm looking at
merging some other patches into lsm/dev and I need to make a decision
about the static call patches (hold off on merging the other patches
until the static call testing is complete, or yank the static call
patches until testing is complete and then re-merge). Understanding
your ability to do the additional testing, and a rough idea of how
long it is going to take would be helpful here.
--
paul-moore.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists