[RFC PATCH 27/29] lsm: consolidate all of the LSM framework initcalls

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM Kees Cook <kees at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:50:12PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > The LSM framework itself registers a small number of initcalls, this
> > patch converts these initcalls into the new initcall mechanism.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com>
> > ---
> >  security/inode.c    |  3 +--
> >  security/lsm.h      |  4 ++++
> >  security/lsm_init.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  security/min_addr.c |  5 +++--
> >  4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

...

> > @@ -503,7 +508,12 @@ early_initcall(security_initcall_early);
> >   */
> >  static int __init security_initcall_core(void)
> >  {
> > -     return lsm_initcall(core);
> > +     int rc_sfs, rc_lsm;
> > +
> > +     rc_sfs = securityfs_init();
> > +     rc_lsm = lsm_initcall(core);
> > +
> > +     return (rc_sfs ? rc_sfs : rc_lsm);
> >  }
> >  core_initcall(security_initcall_core);
>
> Hrm. Given these aren't really _lsm_ hooks, maybe just leave this out. I
> worry about confusing the lsm inits with the lsm subsystem's core inits.

I'm not too concerned about that, and I do prefer it this way.

> Or we need a new stacking type for "required"? But that seems ... heavy.

So I understand the motivation behind that, but that's a big hard "no"
from me at this point in time ;)

-- 
paul-moore.com