linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACYkzJ7rdm6MotCHcM8qLdOFEXrieLqY1voq8EpeRbWA0DFqaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 00:45:12 +0200
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
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, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Adding Guenter directly to this thread.

> 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

I have done the best of the testing I could do here. I think we should
let this run its normal course and see if this breaks anything. I am
not sure how testing is done before patches are merged and what else
you expect me to do?


> long it is going to take would be helpful here.
>
> --
> paul-moore.com