Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933009AbYCFOdO (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:33:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760986AbYCFOc6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:32:58 -0500 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.225]:60575 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760459AbYCFOc4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:32:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fLK0rFwGCcc1oeAc0nEAzmPf2sdawW1Iqs7lV57DBtaOLI8j3K8GRfNtI1ZK22ZDDSfU8ab0GAgn3kD05iD2VD2G84Tw1w6ZHqu5oqkdmWklAlwJjIIGjSvXk4YE8SZcr2SMb9ocE3EYpY2GSX5FBF/q2Lu/Ba+/d02eaR59LFg= Message-ID: <1865922a0803060632kb63405fj3d255472fb2e555f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:32:51 +0200 From: "Ahmed S. Darwish" To: "James Morris" Subject: Re: [PATCH -v8 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter Cc: "Chris Wright" , "Stephen Smalley" , "Eric Paris" , "Casey Schaufler" , "Paul Moore" , "Alexey Dobriyan" , "Andrew Morton" , Linus , LKML , LSM-ML In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080306121913.GA8506@ubuntu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1250 Lines: 38 Hi James, On Thu, Mar 6, 2008, James Morris wrote: > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote: > > > Handle Andrew's concerns: > > - Use __init and __initdata in appropriate places. > > - Do not rely upon dummy_ops layout, use C99 initializations. > > - Use DEFINE_SPINLOCK instead of dynamic initialization. > > The spinlock is not needed now, if security_module_enable() can only be > called during boot via an initcall. > Will do. Would you mind answering my confusions below so I can do the change with good understanding ? I see preempt_disable() before calling security and vfs_caches init, but what will prevent two processors/cores from executing security_module_enable() concurrently (thus possibly corrupting chosen_lsm) ? security_module_enable() is also now used in __init init_smk_fs(). Or the init path got executed serially ? Thank you, -- Ahmed S. Darwish Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/