Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v5 12/30] LSM: Provide separate ordered
 initialization
From:   Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 05 Nov 2018 09:13:58 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jKM_goC2519EXZu7Bh0VoW8jQeR=AJ0XovUPe4_635XNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20181011001846.30964-1-keescook@chromium.org>
         <20181011001846.30964-13-keescook@chromium.org>
         <1541182406.20901.31.camel@linux.ibm.com>
         <CAGXu5jKM_goC2519EXZu7Bh0VoW8jQeR=AJ0XovUPe4_635XNw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <1541427238.21115.58.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 13:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't recall why "integrity" is on the security_initcall, while both
> > IMA and EVM are on the late_initcall().
> 
> It's because integrity needs to have a VFS buffer allocated extremely
> early, so it used the security init to do it. While it's not an LSM,
> it does use this part of LSM infrastructure. I didn't see an obvious
> alternative at the time, but now that I think about it, maybe just a
> simple postcore_initcall() would work?

I was questioning why the "security_initcall", which is called after
the late_initcall.  Moving it to the postcore_initcall, before the
late_initcall, sounds right.

Mimi