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

[Guenter Roeck]

On 8/7/24 17:40, KP Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:34 AM Guenter Roeck <linux at roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/7/24 16:43, Paul Moore wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 6:45 PM 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?
>>>
>>> That is why I was asking you to get in touch with Guenter to try and
>>> sort out what needs to be done to test this across different
>>> architectures.
>>>
>>> With all due respect, this patchset has a history of not being as
>>> tested as well as I would like; we had the compilation warning on gcc
>>> and then the linux-next breakage.  The gcc problem wasn't a major
>>> problem (although it was disappointing, especially considering the
>>> context around it), but I consider the linux-next breakage fairly
>>> serious and would like to have some assurance beyond your "it's okay,
>>> trust me" this time around.  If there really is no way to practically
>>> test this patchset across multiple arches prior to throwing it into
>>> linux-next, so be it, but I want to see at least some effort towards
>>> trying to make that happen.
>>>
>>
>> Happy to run whatever patchset there is through my testbed. Just send me
>> a pointer to it.
>>
>> Note that it should be based on mainline; linux-next is typically too broken
>> to provide any useful signals. I can handle a patchset either on top of v6.10
>> or v6.11-rc2 (meaning 6.10 passes through all my tests, and I can apply and
>> revert patches to/from 6.11-rc2 to get it to pass).
>>
>> Question of course is if that really helps: I don't specifically test features
>> such as LSM or BPF.
> 
> The changes would not be specific to BPF LSM, we just want to check if
> our init/main.c refactoring breaks some arch stuff.
> 

Ok.

> I rebased my patches and pushed a branch based on v6.11-rc2:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kpsingh/linux.git/log/?h=static_calls
> 

I merged your branch into my testing branch and pushed it into my testbed.
It will run tonight. I'll send you the results tomorrow morning.

Thanks,
Guenter