From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932991AbYCEXDa (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 18:03:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932296AbYCEW6X (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:58:23 -0500 Received: from namei.org ([69.55.235.186]:49315 "EHLO us.intercode.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932299AbYCEW6U (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:58:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 09:56:35 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris X-X-Sender: jmorris@us.intercode.com.au To: Andrew Morton cc: "Ahmed S. Darwish" , sds@tycho.nsa.gov, casey@schaufler-ca.com, bunk@kernel.org, chrisw@sous-sol.org, eparis@parisplace.org, adobriyan@sw.ru, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5 -mm] LSM: Add security= boot parameter In-Reply-To: <20080305142948.3d391d84.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Message-ID: References: <20080301211108.GF25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <674864.46980.qm@web36615.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20080301232708.GA625@ubuntu> <20080302074912.GA3215@ubuntu> <20080302105946.GA6406@ubuntu> <20080303153510.GA6963@ubuntu> <1204559642.23738.63.camel@moss-spartans.epoch.ncsc.mil> <20080303212433.GA12998@ubuntu> <20080304030407.GA25686@ubuntu> <20080305142948.3d391d84.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > > +/* Maximum number of letters for an LSM name string */ > > +#define SECURITY_NAME_MAX 10 > > Is this long enough? I almost flagged this earlier, but I don't think we've ever seen an LSM with a longer name, and it can be expanded if needed. 32 or something seems similarly arbitrary. > Please remove this and use compile-time initialisation with DEFINE_SPINLOCK. > > Do we actually need the lock? This code is only called at boot-time if I > understand it correctly? Theoretically, security_module_enable() could be called at any time, although it does seem unlikely never to be called at boot, especially if multiple LSMs are compiled in. In that case, perhaps mark the function as __init, and require it be called only at boot time. > Can chosen_lsm[] be __initdata? With the above, yes. > > +int security_module_enable(struct security_operations *ops) > > +} > > I believe this can be __init. Indeed :-) - James -- James Morris