Re: [PATCH] init/main.c: Do jump_label_init before early_security_init
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Date: 2024-08-01 07:34:23
Also in:
lkml
On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 11:34:29PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
LSM indirect calls being are now replaced by static calls, this requires a jumpt_table_init before early_security_init where LSM hooks and their static calls and keys are initialized. Fixes: 2732ad5ecd5b ("lsm: replace indirect LSM hook calls with static calls") Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> --- init/main.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c index 206acdde51f5..5bd45af7a49e 100644 --- a/init/main.c +++ b/init/main.c@@ -922,6 +922,8 @@ void start_kernel(void) boot_cpu_init(); page_address_init(); pr_notice("%s", linux_banner); + /* LSM and command line parameters use static keys */ + jump_label_init(); early_security_init(); setup_arch(&command_line); setup_boot_config();@@ -933,8 +935,6 @@ void start_kernel(void) boot_cpu_hotplug_init(); pr_notice("Kernel command line: %s\n", saved_command_line); - /* parameters may set static keys */ - jump_label_init(); parse_early_param(); after_dashes = parse_args("Booting kernel", static_command_line, __start___param,--
I was gonna be very surprised if you could simply change the boot ordering
like that and it would simply work. The early boot order is a nightmare so
without proper audit of what uses which facilities when, you won't be really
successful, I'd say.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette