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

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 5:14 PM KP Singh <kpsingh at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 9:33 PM Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 1:12 PM KP Singh <kpsingh at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > JFYI, I synced with Guenter and all arch seem to pass and alpha does
> > > not work due to a reason that I am unable to debug. I will try doing
> > > more debugging but I will need more alpha help here (Added the
> > > maintainers to this thread).
> >
> > Thanks for the update; I was hoping that we might have a resolution
> > for the Alpha failure by now but it doesn't look like we're that
> > lucky.  Hopefully the Alpha devs will be able to help resolve this
> > without too much trouble.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this does mean that I'm going to drop the static call
> > patches from the lsm/dev branch so that we can continue merging other
> > things.  Of course this doesn't mean the static call patches can't
> > come back in later during this dev cycle once everything is solved if
> > there is still time, and worst case there is always the next dev
> > cycle.
> >
>
> Do we really want to drop them for alpha? I would rather disable
> CONFIG_SECURITY for alpha and if people really care for alpha we can
> enable it. Alpha folks, what do you think?

Seriously?  I realize Alpha is an older, lesser used arch, but it is
still a supported arch and we are not going to cause a regression for
the sake of a new feature.  As I mentioned earlier, once the problem
is resolved we can bring the patchset back into lsm/dev; if it gets
resolved soon enough we can even do it during this dev cycle.

-- 
paul-moore.com