[PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code

[KP Singh]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 12:45 AM KP Singh <kpsingh at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:20 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues in my -next testing
> > > > with this patch applied but I only build architectures that build with
> > > > LLVM due to the nature of my work. If exposure to more architectures is
> > > > desirable, perhaps Guenter Roeck would not mind testing it with his
> > > > matrix?
> > >
> > > Thanks Nathan.
> > >
> > > I think the additional testing would be great, KP can you please work
> > > with Guenter to set this up?
> >
>
> Adding Guenter directly to this thread.
>
> > Is that something you can do KP?  I'm asking because I'm looking at
> > merging some other patches into lsm/dev and I need to make a decision
> > about the static call patches (hold off on merging the other patches
> > until the static call testing is complete, or yank the static call
> > patches until testing is complete and then re-merge).  Understanding
> > your ability to do the additional testing, and a rough idea of how
>
> I have done the best of the testing I could do here. I think we should
> let this run its normal course and see if this breaks anything. I am
> not sure how testing is done before patches are merged and what else
> you expect me to do?
>
>

I am adding the bpf mailing list to trigger the BPF CI. That should be
another signal, that's how the BPF tree does its testing.

https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pulls

> > long it is going to take would be helpful here.
> >
> > --
> > paul-moore.com