Re: [PATCH -v8 -rc3] Security: Introduce security= boot parameter

[Ahmed S. Darwish]

Hi James,

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008, James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>
>  >     Handle Andrew's concerns:
>  >     - Use __init and __initdata in appropriate places.
>  >     - Do not rely upon dummy_ops layout, use C99 initializations.
>  >     - Use DEFINE_SPINLOCK instead of dynamic initialization.
>
>  The spinlock is not needed now, if security_module_enable() can only be
>  called during boot via an initcall.
>

Will do.

Would you mind answering my confusions below so I can do the change
with good understanding ?

I see preempt_disable() before calling security and vfs_caches init,
but what will prevent two processors/cores from executing
security_module_enable() concurrently (thus possibly corrupting
chosen_lsm) ?
security_module_enable() is also now used in __init init_smk_fs().

Or the init path got executed serially ?

Thank you,

-- 
Ahmed S. Darwish
Homepage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com
Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/