[RFC PATCH 0/29] Rework the LSM initialization

[Paul Moore]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 10:13 AM Casey Schaufler <casey at schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> On 4/9/2025 11:49 AM, Paul Moore wrote:

...

> General comments:
>
> Adjacent patches with no more commit message than "cleanup" should
> be combined, as that message is telling me "these aren't the changes
> you're looking for".

Things have been shuffled around quite a bit since this posting, and I
expect there will likely be a few more adjustments before a v2 is
posted.

> And about that. I believe that missing or uninformative commit messages
> are on your list of things that displease you. You will need to improve
> them to get them past yourself. :)

You'll notice that I highlighted the garbage commit messages in the
list of things that made this a RFC patch.  I'm well aware that this
is a big problem in this patchset, but I know there are individuals on
the LSM mailing list who have been anxiously awaiting a peek at this
work, so I made a decision to post a very crude revision to satisfy
that curiosity.  If you can't appreciate that decision, I hope that
you can at least understand it ;)

While I hope to never post a proper (read "non RFC") patchset with
such trash for commit messages, if I do, I would hope and expect that
all of you wouldn't hesitate to chastise me!

> There's a lot of churn here due to unnecessary name changes. I can't
> say they're unjustified, but the patch set is bigger than it needs to
> be, and more disruptive.

Perhaps, but there was some pretty awful code, with some pretty awful
names, in the initialization routines and if I was going to spend the
time to clean it all up I felt the renames were justified.  If I'm
ever going to pull a "maintainer's privilege" card, it would probably
be over stuff like this; I know it's trivial, and churns the code, but
I can't tell you how much it bothers me when I keep reading/reviewing
code with awful names.  That's probably why one of my chief nitpicks
with a lot of patches comes back to naming.

> I haven't tested it, but I don't see any substantial problems so far.

I appreciate the review, I know it's not an easy patchset to look at.
The next revision should be cleaner.

-- 
paul-moore.com