On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 6:53 AM Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2025-09-21 at 15:23 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 3:16 PM Mimi Zohar <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > 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
