On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:04:38PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:06 PM Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:49:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > ... > > > > diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c > > > index edf2f4140eaa..981ddb20f48e 100644 > > > --- a/security/lsm_init.c > > > +++ b/security/lsm_init.c > > > @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ static __initdata const char *lsm_order_cmdline; > > > static __initdata const char *lsm_order_legacy; > > > > > > /* Ordered list of LSMs to initialize. */ > > > -static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1]; > > > static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_exclusive; > > > +static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1]; > > > > I don't care either way, but why re-order these? Just local reverse > > xmas-tree? > > Sure? > > Honestly can't say for certain, at this point in the development > process I had somewhat resigned myself to having a mess of a patchset > so I figured this was an opportunity to make it look "nice" (er?) in > my mind, and I suppose at that point that looked better to me ... ?
Understood. I think I ordered the original way because I was hopefully we'd remove "exclusive" soon, and it felt better to remove it from the end of a list of variables. *shrug* yay code vibes -- Kees Cook
