On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Jann Horn <ja...@google.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 3:11 AM Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Split initialization loop into two phases: "exclusive" LSMs and "minor" >> LSMs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keesc...@chromium.org> >> --- >> include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 6 ++++++ >> security/security.c | 8 +++++--- >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >> index f8e618e2bdd2..ec3419b9b16f 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >> +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h >> @@ -2039,7 +2039,13 @@ extern char *lsm_names; >> extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count, >> char *lsm); >> >> +enum lsm_type { >> + LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE = 0, >> + LSM_TYPE_MINOR, >> +}; > > Is the intent of this explicit zero assignment that LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE > should be the default? If so, perhaps a comment "/* default */", or > something like that, might be helpful.
You cut the patch quote off where I do exactly that: >> + enum lsm_type type; /* Optional: default is LSM_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE */ :) -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security