On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 9:50 PM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 8:11 PM Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:49:54PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
...
> > > -/* Append an LSM to the list of ordered LSMs to initialize. */
> > > -static int last_lsm __initdata;
> > > -static void __init append_ordered_lsm(struct lsm_info *lsm, const char
> > > *from)
> > > +/**
> > > + * lsm_order_append - Append a LSM to the ordered list
> > > + * @lsm: LSM definition
> > > + * @src: source of the addition
> > > + */
> > > +static void __init lsm_order_append(struct lsm_info *lsm, const char
> > > *src)
> > > {
> > > /* Ignore duplicate selections. */
> > > - if (exists_ordered_lsm(lsm))
> > > + if (lsm_order_exists(lsm))
> > > return;
> > >
> > > - if (WARN(last_lsm == MAX_LSM_COUNT, "%s: out of LSM static
> > > calls!?\n", from))
> > > - return;
> > > + /* Skip explicitly disabled LSMs. */
> > > + if (lsm->enabled && !lsm_is_enabled(lsm)) {
> > > + if (WARN(lsm_count == MAX_LSM_COUNT,
> > > + "%s: out of LSM static calls!?\n", src))
> > > + return;
> > > + lsm_enabled_set(lsm, true);
> > > + lsm_order[lsm_count] = lsm;
> > > + lsm_idlist[lsm_count++] = lsm->id;
> > > + }
> > >
> > > - /* Enable this LSM, if it is not already set. */
> > > - if (!lsm->enabled)
> > > - lsm->enabled = &lsm_enabled_true;
> > > - lsm_order[last_lsm] = lsm;
> > > - lsm_idlist[last_lsm++] = lsm->id;
> >
> > I don't understand the logic change here. I may be missing something (it
> > feels like a lot of logic changes mixed together again), but this logic:
> >
> > /* Enable this LSM, if it is not already set. */
> > if (!lsm->enabled)
> > lsm->enabled = &lsm_enabled_true;
> >
> > seems like it has gone missing now?
>
> It's a little confusing as lsm_order_append() gets heavily reworked a
> couple of patches later in "lsm: cleanup the LSM ordered parsing",
> which is essentially this function's end state from a logic
> perspective. I think the best thing to do might be to squash those
> two patches ... lemme see how ugly that ends up ...
Yeah, it looks *way* better now with those two patches squashed.
--
paul-moore.com
