# Re: \[PATCH v1 2/8\] LSM: Add an LSM identifier for external use

- From: Casey Schaufler \<casey@schaufler-ca.com\>
- Date: 2022-10-28 16:55:30 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2022/10/1986142
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2022/10/1982168/t.md

```text
On 10/26/2022 11:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2022 Casey Schaufler [ref]
>>>> + * Copyright (C) Intel Corporation
>>> No date for Intel?
>> The latest guidance I have received is that Intel does not want a date.
> Ok, then I need to have an Intel lawyer sign off on a patch that does
> this in order to have that be their official statement.  Otherwise, it
> needs a date.

Seems I misunderstood something. The date will be there.

>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +#define _UAPI_LINUX_LSM_H
>>>> +
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * ID values to identify security modules.
>>>> + * A system may use more than one security module.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * LSM_ID_XXX values 0 - 31 are reserved for future use
>>> Reserved for what?  Why?
>> You're not the first person to ask.
> And the answer is?

There hasn't been an argument for it beyond "just in case".
I can't see a rational reason to reserve specific numbers as
I don't see value in LSM ranges.

>> I'll remove the reserved values for the next version.
> Because we asked it will be removed?

Because I don't have a good reason for including it and it
has been called into question. If a reviewer has a legitimate
case for reserved values they may be back.

> confused,
>
> greg k-h
```