[PATCH v3 2/5] security: Count the LSMs enabled at compile time

[Casey Schaufler]

On 9/25/2023 4:03 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2023/09/24 1:06, KP Singh wrote:
>>> I was not pushing LKM-based LSM because the LSM community wanted to make it possible to
>>> enable arbitrary combinations (e.g. enabling selinux and smack at the same time) before
>>> making it possible to use LKM-based LSMs.
> (...snipped...)
>>> As a reminder to tell that I still want to make LKM-based LSM officially supported again,
>>> I'm responding to changes (like this patch) that are based on "any LSM must be built into
>>> vmlinux". Please be careful not to make changes that forever make LKM-based LSMs impossible.
> You did not recognize the core chunk of this post. :-(
>
> It is Casey's commitment that the LSM infrastructure will not forbid LKM-based LSMs.

... And this code doesn't. I you want LKM based LSM support I suggest you
provide patches. If there is anything in the LSM infrastructure that you can't
work around I'll help work out how to do it. But I am not going to do it for
you, and I don't think anyone else is inclined to, either.