From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 529EA36E46C; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776967328; cv=none; b=CODZysX/eH5XyIrAvfEfYwH+E3V8xTPzKHm90u8O8I60OoeLoyW/IQFHFGwBLG8g1izd30xHsNVXtVX0V4yh6URv3ur36hlAjo4oJbiq4BldvcSzV9Ezi4966jEPfykXtDX95itV6AbCYXKoIRfY1cymlJyeTCmk1Ng1TDnCEys= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776967328; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fDY90DMv3Ol8vb9oXJ/nzUFMIK0Cb7pUN0sAUQwV0HI=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type: Date:MIME-Version; b=AbpLBJTmHlqvUHgBY6RHJCmPxSajVHDYwCqdmy2JmUYo7ThhSocLG6JXmKi99QLn/+P9HBMZTtn7Dqosx5oMg/oNJN4phLt7XoFQdRS9IULkbLmciw0cEy2oohl8EECIL7xzevgBBE/Vz7KjWi2F4MRSFbjaYurZNx+sVE6K8yk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=UFtu6quv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="UFtu6quv" Received: from pps.filterd (m0356516.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.11/8.18.1.11) with ESMTP id 63N8Z3Q73657884; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=9sjJYo hzQJT7F4cb93bmmPzBc2C6eRDRAe69SB0r5eM=; b=UFtu6quvBAz6lukmYUN/+i V+5d5WSG+AfoUyORKZtrsbPHElhh7SYmKb8r6tzOWHGHIQLLQiUU1NS1Qor5hWeq gaPyWoGCWXzOjTLJMqBI1RcJkpO1ApvQp5ctNOerJwGVqrZqfQD78Kls6G9UgEQZ 6KFf6+8SqEpPmC8jccPLPdRs1qvLHPedkyvkuKBptVmfOuHA1b2awbwrQvZklHlO JOrlIx5h3KTAsAZnxMf43BL+jYEjLs4rpUZePAyXpiCWdgxtyo3y/p+1F6/UU0XM ceGXXPmSiu69EPhoS89iegJTNZ2KKFwHvHG5FAQ8th3JMe1Gxk6mzG/kQZKyy5uA == Received: from ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (dd.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.221]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4dpeu7sfe7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.7/8.18.1.7) with ESMTP id 63NHocIR029971; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:21 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.72]) by ppma13.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 4dpjky7pkd-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.233]) by smtprelay05.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 63NI1KvJ17040038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:20 GMT Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18B25804E; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6403458054; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-43857255-d5e6-4659-90f1-fc5cee4750ad.ibm.com (unknown [9.31.96.173]) by smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Apr 2026 18:01:18 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/4] security: ima: call ima_init() again at late_initcall_sync for defered TPM From: Mimi Zohar To: Yeoreum Yun , Jonathan McDowell Cc: 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, paul@paul-moore.com, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com, roberto.sassu@huawei.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 In-Reply-To: References: <82803bb3b471898a77084c449b73c7f7b4eb2149.camel@linux.ibm.com> <56a8aab50a3b5ce0a345fc2079fb2abc7d0f1b23.camel@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 14:01:17 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Reinject: loops=2 maxloops=12 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: wxO2tqbBYODpuAMX3yii5CFXn_ixY172 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Ksp9H2WN c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=69ea5e73 cx=c_pps a=AfN7/Ok6k8XGzOShvHwTGQ==:117 a=AfN7/Ok6k8XGzOShvHwTGQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=A5OVakUREuEA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=RnoormkPH1_aCDwRdu11:22 a=Y2IxJ9c9Rs8Kov3niI8_:22 a=7CQSdrXTAAAA:8 a=46FjsvL0HBcK6KeyIT0A:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=a-qgeE7W1pNrGK8U0ZQC:22 X-Proofpoint-GUID: SLJUqnjIQ7hAgxoc7XerQzZD9gD-DF_7 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwNDIzMDE3MyBTYWx0ZWRfX59eM+OfmhLYt Ph5s8NVrrugP46CRSIHrUMqOusBiOvYj8VcMZuucXBaw9zOsVwD/Vqfg7ahYLK75GqCBudJtecz TwUZ0q6KBuB4onhgHBfmkSxUd9bljwRaOQVeVKIlKzz0VgTCGAY0CJJdAsfJ7G/e9upzbFcSMPp eendN1Ahoym6JVGfobIbUz8xaemNBzn+Tl2XPcB/+Oz7FJn5SPWaUEhuDkj1I7ph9yHSFkwjzvc Gq2I1MUVCIv3TLy5HF9RaNNx0ccUoIheDx4O49o0KjIh8tHZJS5wv6YzsVyco1dZlbU+DaiJNse Sw1kVjxlAw7cCyUIgrZwmsGu2opV3egqrkRWA4bm40zrIxjx598OPFQhgkx2YN6pkn8ko/kH0p1 JpaZHcdhxySAwxp5hrhl9hfV9hruSzWWazb7j2x4h8iOZXBDzumaGPw5ZXOf1yfTZN0Mgg+5drs bXyUQdqQA2khGQdCBFg== X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1143,Hydra:6.1.51,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-04-23_03,2026-04-21_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=typeunknown authscore=0 authtc= authcc= route=outbound adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2604200000 definitions=main-2604230173 On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 15:33 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > Hi Jonathan, >=20 > > * # Be careful, this email looks suspicious; * Out of Character: The se= nder is exhibiting a significant deviation from their usual behavior, this = may indicate that their account has been compromised. Be extra cautious bef= ore opening links or attachments. * > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 02:55:14PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 13:53 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 01:34:13PM +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2026-04-23 at 06:55 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 20:41 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mimi, > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2026-04-22 at 17:24 +0100, Yeoreum Yun wr= ote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To generate the boot_aggregate log in the IMA s= ubsystem with TPM PCR values, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the TPM driver must be built as built-in and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > must be probed before the IMA subsystem is init= ialized. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, when the TPM device operates over the = FF-A protocol using > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the CRB interface, probing fails and returns -E= PROBE_DEFER if > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the tpm_crb_ffa device =E2=80=94 an FF-A device= that provides the communication > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interface to the tpm_crb driver =E2=80=94 has n= ot yet been probed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To ensure the TPM device operating over the FF-= A protocol with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the CRB interface is probed before IMA initiali= zation, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the following conditions must be met: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The corresponding ffa_device must be regi= stered, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which is done via ffa_init(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. The tpm_crb_driver must successfully prob= e this device via > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tpm_crb_ffa_init(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. The tpm_crb driver using CRB over FF-A ca= n then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be probed successfully. (See crb_acpi_add= () and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tpm_crb_ffa_init() for reference.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, ffa_init(), tpm_crb_ffa_init(), = and crb_acpi_driver_init() are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all registered with device_initcall, which mean= s crb_acpi_driver_init() may > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be invoked before ffa_init() and tpm_crb_ffa_in= it() are completed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When this occurs, probing the TPM device is def= erred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the deferred probe can happen after th= e IMA subsystem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has already been initialized, since IMA initial= ization is performed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during late_initcall, and deferred_probe_initca= ll() is performed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at the same level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To resolve this, call ima_init() again at late_= inicall_sync level > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so that let IMA not miss TPM PCR value when gen= erating boot_aggregate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > log though TPM device presents in the system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yeoreum Yun > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lot of change for just detecting whether ima_in= it() is being called on > > > > > > > > > > > > > late_initcall or late_initcall_sync(), without an= y explanation for all the other > > > > > > > > > > > > > changes (e.g. ima_init_core). > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please just limit the change to just calling ima_= init() twice. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > My concern is that ima_update_policy_flags() will b= e called > > > > > > > > > > > > when ima_init() is deferred -- not initialised anyt= hing. > > > > > > > > > > > > though functionally, it might be okay however, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think ima_update_policy_flags() and notifier shou= ld work after ima_init() > > > > > > > > > > > > works logically. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > This change I think not much quite a lot. just wrap= per ima_init() with > > > > > > > > > > > > ima_init_core() with some error handling. > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > Also, if we handle in ima_init() only, but it failed = with other reason, > > > > > > > > > > > we shouldn't call again ima_init() in the late_initca= ll_sync. > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > To handle this, It wouldn't do in the ima_init() but = we need to handle > > > > > > > > > > > it by caller of ima_init(). > > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > > Only tpm_default_chip() is being called to set the ima_= tpm_chip. On failure, > > > > > > > > > > instead of going into TPM-bypass mode, return immediate= ly. There are no calls > > > > > > > > > > to anything else. Just call ima_init() a second time. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > I=E2=80=99m not fully convinced this is sufficient. > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > What I meant is the case where ima_init() fails due to ot= her > > > > > > > > > initialisation steps, not only tpm_default_chip() (e.g. i= ma_fs_init()). > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > The purpose of THIS patch is to add late_initcall_sync, whe= n the TPM is not > > > > > > > > available at late_initcall. This would be classified as a = bug fix and would be > > > > > > > > backported. No other changes should be included in this pa= tch. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Okay. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > I=E2=80=99d also like to ask again whether it is fine to = call > > > > > > > > > ima_update_policy_flags() and keep the notifier registere= d in the > > > > > > > > > deferred TPM case. While this may be functionally accepta= ble, it seems > > > > > > > > > logically questionable to do so when ima_init() has not c= ompleted. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > Other than extending the TPM, IMA should behave exactly the= same whether there > > > > > > > > is a TPM or goes into TPM-bypass mode. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > > There is also a possibility that a deferred case ultimate= ly fails (e.g. > > > > > > > > > deferred at late_initcall, but then failing at late_initc= all_sync > > > > > > > > > for another reason, even while entering TPM bypass mode).= In that case, > > > > > > > > > it seems more appropriate to handle this state in the cal= ler of > > > > > > > > > ima_init(), rather than inside ima_init() itself. > > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > > If the TPM isn't found at late_initcall_sync(), then IMA sh= ould go into TPM- > > > > > > > > bypass mode. Please don't make any other changes to the ex= isting IMA behavior > > > > > > > > and hide it here behind the late_initcall_sync change. > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > Okay. you're talking called ima_update_policy_flags() at late= _initcall > > > > > > > wouldn't be not a problem even in case of late_initcall_sync'= s ima_init() > > > > > > > get failed with "TPM-bypass mode". > > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > > I see then, I'll make a patch simpler then. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > But I think in case of below situation: > > > > > > - late_initcall's first ima_init() is deferred. > > > > > > - late_initcall_sync try again but failed and try again with > > > > > > CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > I would like to sustain init_ima_core to reduce the same code r= epeat > > > > > > in late_initcall_sync. > > > > >=20 > > > > > I think what Mimi's proposing is: > > > > >=20 > > > > > If we're in late_initcall, and the TPM isn't available, return > > > > > immediately with an error (the EPROBE_DEFER?), don't do any init. > > > > >=20 > > > > > If we're in late_initcall_sync, either we're already initialised,= so do > > > > > return and nothing, or run through the entire flow, even if the T= PM > > > > > isn't unavailable. > > > > >=20 > > > > > So ima_init() just needs to know a) if it's in the sync or non-sy= nc mode > > > > > and b) for the sync mode, if we've already done the init at > > > > > non-sync. > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks, Jonathan. That is exactly what I'm suggesting. Any other = changes > > > > should not be included in this patch. Since Yeoreum is not hearing= me, feel > > > > free to post a patch. > > >=20 > > > I see. so what you need to is this only > > > If it looks good to you. I'll send it at v3. > >=20 > > FWIW, I pulled the tpm_default_chip check out a level to account for th= e > > extra init you mentioned, and have the following (completely untested o= r > > compiled, but gives the approach): > >=20 > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > index d48bf0ad26f4..88fe105b7f00 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h > > @@ -166,6 +166,7 @@ enum lsm_order { > > * @initcall_fs: LSM callback for fs_initcall setup, optional > > * @initcall_device: LSM callback for device_initcall() setup, optiona= l > > * @initcall_late: LSM callback for late_initcall() setup, optional > > + * @initcall_late_sync: LSM callback for late_initcall_sync() setup, o= ptional > > */ > > struct lsm_info { > > const struct lsm_id *id; > > @@ -181,6 +182,7 @@ struct lsm_info { > > int (*initcall_fs)(void); > > int (*initcall_device)(void); > > int (*initcall_late)(void); > > + int (*initcall_late_sync)(void); > > }; > > #define DEFINE_LSM(lsm) \ > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c b/security/integrity/ima= /ima_init.c > > index a2f34f2d8ad7..a60dfb8316d8 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_init.c > > @@ -119,10 +119,6 @@ int __init ima_init(void) > > { > > int rc; > > - ima_tpm_chip =3D tpm_default_chip(); > > - if (!ima_tpm_chip) > > - pr_info("No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!\n"); > > - > > rc =3D integrity_init_keyring(INTEGRITY_KEYRING_IMA); > > if (rc) > > return rc; > > diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c b/security/integrity/ima= /ima_main.c > > index 1d6229b156fb..b60a85fa803a 100644 > > --- a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > +++ b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c > > @@ -1237,7 +1237,7 @@ static int ima_kernel_module_request(char *kmod_n= ame) > > #endif /* CONFIG_INTEGRITY_ASYMMETRIC_KEYS */ > > -static int __init init_ima(void) > > +static int __init init_ima(bool sync) > > { > > int error; > > @@ -1247,6 +1247,19 @@ static int __init init_ima(void) > > return 0; > > } > > + /* If we found the TPM during our first attempt, nothing further to d= o */ > > + if (sync && ima_tpm_chip) > > + return 0; > > + > > + ima_tpm_chip =3D tpm_default_chip(); > > + if (!ima_tpm_chip && !sync) { > > + pr_debug("TPM not available, will try later\n"); > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > + } > > + > > + if (!ima_tpm_chip) > > + pr_info("No TPM chip found, activating TPM-bypass!\n"); > > + > > ima_appraise_parse_cmdline(); > > ima_init_template_list(); > > hash_setup(CONFIG_IMA_DEFAULT_HASH); > > @@ -1274,6 +1287,16 @@ static int __init init_ima(void) > > return error; > > } > > +static int __init init_ima_late(void) > > +{ > > + return init_ima(false); > > +} > > + > > +static int __init init_ima_late_sync(void) > > +{ > > + return init_ima(true); > > +} > > + > > static struct security_hook_list ima_hooks[] __ro_after_init =3D { > > LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_check_security, ima_bprm_check), > > LSM_HOOK_INIT(bprm_creds_for_exec, ima_bprm_creds_for_exec), > > @@ -1319,6 +1342,7 @@ DEFINE_LSM(ima) =3D { > > .init =3D init_ima_lsm, > > .order =3D LSM_ORDER_LAST, > > .blobs =3D &ima_blob_sizes, > > - /* Start IMA after the TPM is available */ > > - .initcall_late =3D init_ima, > > + /* Ensure we start IMA after the TPM is available */ > > + .initcall_late =3D init_ima_late, > > + .initcall_late_sync =3D init_ima_late_sync, > > }; > > diff --git a/security/lsm_init.c b/security/lsm_init.c > > index 573e2a7250c4..4e5c59beb82a 100644 > > --- a/security/lsm_init.c > > +++ b/security/lsm_init.c > > @@ -547,13 +547,22 @@ device_initcall(security_initcall_device); > > * security_initcall_late - Run the LSM late initcalls > > */ > > static int __init security_initcall_late(void) > > +{ > > + return lsm_initcall(late); > > +} > > +late_initcall(security_initcall_late); > > + > > +/** > > + * security_initcall_late_sync - Run the LSM late initcalls sync > > + */ > > +static int __init security_initcall_late_sync(void) > > { > > int rc; > > - rc =3D lsm_initcall(late); > > + rc =3D lsm_initcall(late_sync); > > lsm_pr_dbg("all enabled LSMs fully activated\n"); > > call_blocking_lsm_notifier(LSM_STARTED_ALL, NULL); > > return rc; > > } > > -late_initcall(security_initcall_late); > > +late_initcall_sync(security_initcall_late_sync); >=20 > I'm fine this. but are we talking about "ima_init()" not "init_ima()"? Having two functions named ima_init() and init_ima() is really confusing. = At least with this patch, init_ima() will be replaced with init_ima_late() and init_ima_sync(). > Because of this, I've fixuated and make a long stupid speaking myself. The commit 0e0546eabcd6 ("firmware: arm_ffa: Change initcall level of ffa_i= nit() to rootfs_initcall") patch description was really well written. I'm really= sad that it needs to be reverted. The TPM not being initialized before IMA, has been an issue for a really lo= ng time. Hopefully this patch will safely fix it, not only for you, but for o= thers as well. >=20 > If this seems good to Mimi, I don't care who send it. > But If you're going to send this, could you includes 2 and 3 too? Once this patch is ready, we can create a topic branch to coordinate upstre= aming the remaining patches. thanks! Mimi