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

[Guenter Roeck]

On 8/7/24 17:40, KP Singh wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2024 at 2:34 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 8/7/24 16:43, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 6:45 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:45 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 5:41 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 10:20 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
> The changes would not be specific to BPF LSM, we just want to check if
> our init/main.c refactoring breaks some arch stuff.

Ok.

> I rebased my patches and pushed a branch based on v6.11-rc2:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kpsingh/linux.git/log/?h=static_calls

I merged your branch into my testing branch and pushed it into my testbed.
It will run tonight. I'll send you the results tomorrow morning.

Thanks,
Guenter