Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Initialize early LSMs after arch code

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 8/7/24 16:43, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 6:45 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:20 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> For what it's worth, I have not noticed any issues in my -next testing
>>>>> with this patch applied but I only build architectures that build with
>>>>> LLVM due to the nature of my work. If exposure to more architectures is
>>>>> desirable, perhaps Guenter Roeck would not mind testing it with his
>>>>> matrix?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Nathan.
>>>>
>>>> I think the additional testing would be great, KP can you please work
>>>> with Guenter to set this up?
>>>
>>
>> Adding Guenter directly to this thread.
>>
>>> Is that something you can do KP?  I'm asking because I'm looking at
>>> merging some other patches into lsm/dev and I need to make a decision
>>> about the static call patches (hold off on merging the other patches
>>> until the static call testing is complete, or yank the static call
>>> patches until testing is complete and then re-merge).  Understanding
>>> your ability to do the additional testing, and a rough idea of how
>>
>> I have done the best of the testing I could do here. I think we should
>> let this run its normal course and see if this breaks anything. I am
>> not sure how testing is done before patches are merged and what else
>> you expect me to do?
> 
> That is why I was asking you to get in touch with Guenter to try and
> sort out what needs to be done to test this across different
> architectures.
> 
> With all due respect, this patchset has a history of not being as
> tested as well as I would like; we had the compilation warning on gcc
> and then the linux-next breakage.  The gcc problem wasn't a major
> problem (although it was disappointing, especially considering the
> context around it), but I consider the linux-next breakage fairly
> serious and would like to have some assurance beyond your "it's okay,
> trust me" this time around.  If there really is no way to practically
> test this patchset across multiple arches prior to throwing it into
> linux-next, so be it, but I want to see at least some effort towards
> trying to make that happen.
> 

Happy to run whatever patchset there is through my testbed. Just send me
a pointer to it.

Note that it should be based on mainline; linux-next is typically too broken
to provide any useful signals. I can handle a patchset either on top of v6.10
or v6.11-rc2 (meaning 6.10 passes through all my tests, and I can apply and
revert patches to/from 6.11-rc2 to get it to pass).

Question of course is if that really helps: I don't specifically test features
such as LSM or BPF.

Thanks,
Guenter