Re: [PATCH -v7 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ahmed S. Darwish <darwish.07@...>, Chris Wright <chrisw@...>, Stephen Smalley <sds@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Eric Paris <eparis@...>, Casey Schaufler <casey@...>, Paul Moore <paul.moore@...>, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Linus <torvalds@...>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...>, LSM-ML <linux-security-module@...>
Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 12:33 pm

--- "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com> wrote:


If the problem with initializing smackfs is because the
locks aren't initialized why not leave the lock initializations
in smack_init, and have them done before the check to see if the
smack LSM is going to get used? Really, we're only talking
about the case where a kernel is configured for testing or
development purposes, and the lock initialization can't
be considered a major impact in any case.



Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter, Ahmed S. Darwish, (Tue Mar 4, 9:58 am)
[PATCH -v7 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter, Ahmed S. Darwish, (Wed Mar 5, 11:29 am)
Re: [PATCH -v7 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot para..., Casey Schaufler, (Wed Mar 5, 12:33 pm)