diff mbox series

[RFC,18/29] loadpin: move initcalls to the LSM framework

Message ID 20250409185019.238841-49-paul@paul-moore.com (mailing list archive)
State New
Headers show
Series Rework the LSM initialization | expand

Commit Message

Paul Moore April 9, 2025, 6:50 p.m. UTC 
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
---
 security/loadpin/loadpin.c | 15 ++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Comments

Kees Cook April 9, 2025, 11:39 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:03PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Paul Moore April 11, 2025, 1:15 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:39 PM Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:03PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>

Do you mind if I convert this into an Acked-by?  Generally speaking I
put more weight behind a Reviewed-by tag, but in the case of Loadpin
you are the maintainer and I'd much prefer an Acked-by.  While I'm
always happy to get more reviews on a patch, the primary reason for
CC'ing you directly was to get ACKs on the LSMs you maintain :)
Kees Cook April 11, 2025, 2:16 a.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:15:47PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:39 PM Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:03PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
>
> Do you mind if I convert this into an Acked-by?  Generally speaking I
> put more weight behind a Reviewed-by tag, but in the case of Loadpin
> you are the maintainer and I'd much prefer an Acked-by.  While I'm
> always happy to get more reviews on a patch, the primary reason for
> CC'ing you directly was to get ACKs on the LSMs you maintain :)

Acked-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>

:)
Paul Moore April 11, 2025, 2:41 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 10:16 PM Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:15:47PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:39 PM Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:03PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
> >
> > Do you mind if I convert this into an Acked-by?  Generally speaking I
> > put more weight behind a Reviewed-by tag, but in the case of Loadpin
> > you are the maintainer and I'd much prefer an Acked-by.  While I'm
> > always happy to get more reviews on a patch, the primary reason for
> > CC'ing you directly was to get ACKs on the LSMs you maintain :)
>
> Acked-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
>
> :)

Thanks :)
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/security/loadpin/loadpin.c b/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
index b9ddf05c5c16..273ffbd6defe 100644
--- a/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
+++ b/security/loadpin/loadpin.c
@@ -270,11 +270,6 @@  static int __init loadpin_init(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-DEFINE_LSM(loadpin) = {
-	.id = &loadpin_lsmid,
-	.init = loadpin_init,
-};
-
 #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_VERITY
 
 enum loadpin_securityfs_interface_index {
@@ -434,10 +429,16 @@  static int __init init_loadpin_securityfs(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-fs_initcall(init_loadpin_securityfs);
-
 #endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_VERITY */
 
+DEFINE_LSM(loadpin) = {
+	.id = &loadpin_lsmid,
+	.init = loadpin_init,
+#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_VERITY
+	.initcall_fs = init_loadpin_securityfs,
+#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LOADPIN_VERITY */
+};
+
 /* Should not be mutable after boot, so not listed in sysfs (perm == 0). */
 module_param(enforce, int, 0);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(enforce, "Enforce module/firmware pinning");