On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 2:13 PM Yeoreum Yun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sounds good. Once the patch is posted, I’ll review it as well. > Sorry again for the noise, and thanks for your patience ;)
My apologies for not getting a chance to look at this patchset sooner. This seems like an obvious, perhaps even stupid, question, but I have to ask: if IMA can be properly initialized via late_initcall_sync(), why not simply do the initialization in late_initcall_sync() and drop the late_initcall() initialization? Does any IMA functionality suffer if initialization waits until late_initcall_sync()? If so, it seems non-critical if waiting until _sync() is acceptable, as it appears in these patches/comments. -- paul-moore.com
