# Re: \[PATCH security-next v5 12/30\] LSM: Provide separate ordered initialization

- From: Mimi Zohar \<zohar@linux.ibm.com\>
- Date: 2018-11-05 14:14:21 
- List: linux-security-module
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2018/11/5423964
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2018/10/5404915/t.md

```text
On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 13:49 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Mimi Zohar [ref] wrote:
> > I don't recall why "integrity" is on the security_initcall, while both
> > IMA and EVM are on the late_initcall().
> 
> It's because integrity needs to have a VFS buffer allocated extremely
> early, so it used the security init to do it. While it's not an LSM,
> it does use this part of LSM infrastructure. I didn't see an obvious
> alternative at the time, but now that I think about it, maybe just a
> simple postcore_initcall() would work?

I was questioning why the "security_initcall", which is called after
the late_initcall.  Moving it to the postcore_initcall, before the
late_initcall, sounds right.

Mimi

```