From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95ACAFB44A6 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 05:57:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=mq7kvweBVwKu99p8xpmRLJVZ17neeuneObD0eiz9l0A=; b=O0/OGHesuhHSLkOuh+hOggLBxi 02mM8iuRbTB6jp79QlWaqR5P/IAPYcRUwybWGzrmG4oHEtUy7etViwQxmtkzmYphr1DpZ5YQxIjx2 1kqlIydHVs2DcgccQYxBwBHcmNybnSWXbBjpSmLGkiWC1SkVu0ZIZ+nsDdvo3qlmWukhL0hds8ZOO FsBhiqvVyJT/ZU9/aUWxrESPlGOswO4tuhDwGc0GOLdgt6Ik/kpupzPvLOw1UjJunKSTeTNLwvxWW 0vSB0+j3RTsUalo1zUhfudFDGUGI/sK5uBgcYRyUCZKkfaEOSl7t32PfqD8xuRmhNuCir2iVQ5M5o n77uBxFw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wG9Xy-0000000Cgfq-0duo; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 05:57:50 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wG9Xv-0000000Cgec-2qnC for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Apr 2026 05:57:49 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25411BC0; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 22:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e129823.arm.com (e129823.arm.com [10.1.197.6]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1F173F23F; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 22:57:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1777010265; bh=dTNza0KEYrjBEa6YZ5hzfCt/Ar2RAGWr/4ZMUagfrm0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=oe+6nX2Bl77VP10ARS83jN4HK85wFcLCFAXYd40mLXLBqZV1OIDDgfS6b4AgRW/ak NOdIClJEzKWOV1JwA4VBULgTUCmX1/R+SQ8NsifWR2plQ4uq32gw42eErrQl74oPqa 2DoOsoRSS8V5lkMdL0CiZGa6C23BZC52Dc5zDwww= Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026 06:57:39 +0100 From: Yeoreum Yun To: Paul Moore Cc: Mimi Zohar , roberto.sassu@huawei.com, Jonathan McDowell , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, dmitry.kasatkin@gmail.com, eric.snowberg@oracle.com, jarkko@kernel.org, jgg@ziepe.ca, sudeep.holla@kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, oupton@kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, noodles@meta.com, sebastianene@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260423_225747_909426_37C2F509 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.41 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Paul, > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 2:13 PM Yeoreum Yun 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/a6a0e15286c983d720de227c6827adbe976c5b9b.camel@linux.ibm.com/ Thanks. -- Sincerely, Yeoreum Yun