On 10/26/2022 11:31 PM, Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 12:36:34PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2022 Casey Schaufler [off-list 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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+ */
+
+#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.

quoted

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