From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753358AbdFVRZB (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:25:01 -0400 Received: from mail.steve.org.uk ([80.68.84.102]:60277 "EHLO ssh.steve.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752370AbdFVRZA (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:25:00 -0400 To: Kees Cook Cc: linux-security-module , LKML , James Morris , "Serge E. Hallyn" From: Steve Kemp Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Moved module init-functions into the module. Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1498152084.15628.1@ssh.steve.org.uk> In-Reply-To: References: <20170622084507.GA4025@steve.org.uk> <589cbc78-2256-2334-e907-2e440f99b612@schaufler-ca.com> X-added-header: steve.org.uk Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > The module initialization code belongs in the module. > > The LSM infrastructure should have an absolute minimum > > of module specific information. I would rather see the > > "minor" modules (yama, loadpin) changed to use the module > > registration scheme used by the "major" modules, but that > > will require a mechanism to ensure module ordering, and > > we don't have that yet. No, don't do this. > > Yeah, I agree: initialization order is important here and I don't want > to depend on the Makefile for this. I can appreciate that argument. I did consider it myself, but decided that because the minor modules had such differing goals, and no real functional overlap, in practice that would mean that explicit ordering wasn't a strong requirement. If/when a better registration scheme becomes available then we'll all switch to using it, and that would be great. Thanks for the feedback. I'll not tweak any further. Steve -- https://steve.fi/