[PATCH v4 11/34] lsm: get rid of the lsm_names list and do some cleanup

[Paul Moore]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 6:53 AM Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2025-09-21 at 15:23 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 3:16 PM Mimi Zohar <zohar at linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2025-09-16 at 18:03 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > The LSM currently has a lot of code to maintain a list of the currently
> > > > active LSMs in a human readable string, with the only user being the
> > > > "/sys/kernel/security/lsm" code.  Let's drop all of that code and
> > > > generate the string on first use and then cache it for subsequent use.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com>
> > >
> > > FYI, checkpatch.pl complains of unbalanced braces, otherwise
> >
> > Looks good to me?
> >
> > % stg export --stdout lsm-lsm_names_cleanup | ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -
> > total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 139 lines checked
> >
> > Your patch has no obvious style problems and is ready for submission.
>
> Try adding "--strict", which enforces
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.html#placing-braces-and-spaces

Ah, yes, sure.  FWIW, I view checkpatch's findings mostly as
"advisory"; oftentimes it can help catch important things, other times
I think it's kinda silly (and no, I don't have a list of each, so
please don't ask).  I often tell people new to kernel development that
it is generally better to follow checkpatch's suggestions if you are
uncertain, however don't be surprised if a maintainer prefers
something slightly different.

For those reasons I don't ever bother with the "strict" checkpatch mode.

-- 
paul-moore.com