[RFC PATCH 07/29] lsm: rework lsm_active_cnt and lsm_idlist[]

[Casey Schaufler]

On 4/10/2025 3:25 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 06:04:38PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 7:06 PM Kees Cook <kees at kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 02:49:52PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c
>>>> index edf2f4140eaa..981ddb20f48e 100644
>>>> --- a/security/lsm_init.c
>>>> +++ b/security/lsm_init.c
>>>> @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ static __initdata const char *lsm_order_cmdline;
>>>>  static __initdata const char *lsm_order_legacy;
>>>>
>>>>  /* Ordered list of LSMs to initialize. */
>>>> -static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1];
>>>>  static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_exclusive;
>>>> +static __initdata struct lsm_info *lsm_order[MAX_LSM_COUNT + 1];
>>> I don't care either way, but why re-order these? Just local reverse
>>> xmas-tree?
>> Sure?
>>
>> Honestly can't say for certain, at this point in the development
>> process I had somewhat resigned myself to having a mess of a patchset
>> so I figured this was an opportunity to make it look "nice" (er?) in
>> my mind, and I suppose at that point that looked better to me ... ?
> Understood. I think I ordered the original way because I was hopefully
> we'd remove "exclusive" soon,

In the pipeline. Small values of "soon".

>  and it felt better to remove it from the
> end of a list of variables. *shrug* yay code vibes
>