From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=A0hX=MM=vger.kernel.org=linux-kernel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B430FC004D2
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:25:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B3020666
	for <linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>; Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:25:36 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 65B3020666
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=goodmis.org
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1726950AbeJAGAZ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 1 Oct 2018 02:00:25 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:57258 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726261AbeJAGAZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 1 Oct 2018 02:00:25 -0400
Received: from vmware.local.home (cpe-66-24-56-78.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.56.78])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 439DF20666;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:25:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date:   Sun, 30 Sep 2018 19:25:26 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Abderrahmane Benbachir <abderrahmane.benbachir@polymtl.ca>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        "Schaufler, Casey" <casey.schaufler@intel.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH security-next v3 04/29] LSM: Remove initcall tracing
Message-ID: <20180930192526.4480231c@vmware.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJyL7FuLRj1XxujpGs9=wUQgS4dRfeGB+HUBqy4mkEBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180925001832.18322-1-keescook@chromium.org>
        <20180925001832.18322-5-keescook@chromium.org>
        <20180926123522.4080d9eb@vmware.local.home>
        <CAGXu5jJyL7FuLRj1XxujpGs9=wUQgS4dRfeGB+HUBqy4mkEBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:35:21 -0700
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 9:35 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:18:07 -0700
> > Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> This partially reverts commit 58eacfffc417 ("init, tracing: instrument
> >> security and console initcall trace events") since security init calls
> >> are about to no longer resemble regular init calls.  
> >
> > I'm not against the change, but how much are they going to "no longer
> > resemble regular init calls"?  
> 
> My take on "regular" init calls is that they're always run, link-time
> ordered, etc. The changes proposed here will make it so not all
> initialization are run depending on runtime configurations, ordering
> will be flexible, etc.
>

Will it still be a good idea to have a tracepoint for those calls?
Perhaps not an  initcall tracepoint but some other kind?

-- Steve