Hi Paul, > 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.
This is the way first patch did, and here is some discussion for this (Might you have seen, but in case of you missed): - https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ Thanks. -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun
