On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:21:46PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM Kees Cook <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:12PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > The LSM framework itself registers a small number of initcalls, this
> > > patch converts these initcalls into the new initcall mechanism.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com>
> > > ---
> > > security/inode.c | 3 +--
> > > security/lsm.h | 4 ++++
> > > security/lsm_init.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> > > security/min_addr.c | 5 +++--
> > > 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> ...
>
> > > @@ -503,7 +508,12 @@ early_initcall(security_initcall_early);
> > > */
> > > static int __init security_initcall_core(void)
> > > {
> > > - return lsm_initcall(core);
> > > + int rc_sfs, rc_lsm;
> > > +
> > > + rc_sfs = securityfs_init();
> > > + rc_lsm = lsm_initcall(core);
> > > +
> > > + return (rc_sfs ? rc_sfs : rc_lsm);
> > > }
> > > core_initcall(security_initcall_core);
> >
> > Hrm. Given these aren't really _lsm_ hooks, maybe just leave this out. I
> > worry about confusing the lsm inits with the lsm subsystem's core inits.
>
> I'm not too concerned about that, and I do prefer it this way.
Sounds good to me. And with an eye toward trying to minimize which kinds
of init calls we have in the future, I think it'll just get cleaner over
time.
--
Kees Cook
