# Re: \[PATCH 13/13\] security: convert VMA flag tests to use vma\_flags\_t

- From: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) \<ljs@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2026-11-06 10:13:45 
- List: linux-security-module
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-security-module/2026/11/17877237
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-mm/2026/11/17874173/t.md

```text
On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 06:17:47PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2026 at 4:35 PM Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) [ref] wrote:
> >
> > Replace use of the legacy vm_flags_t flags with vma_flags_t values in the
> > mmap and mprotect LSM hooks of SELinux, AppArmor, IMA and IPE.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <ljs@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  security/apparmor/lsm.c           |  2 +-
> >  security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c |  2 +-
> >  security/ipe/hooks.c              |  2 +-
> >  security/selinux/hooks.c          | 14 +++++++-------
> >  4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> Similar to the other patchset you just posted, is there any reason why
> individual subsystem maintainers can't pick these patches up, or is
> there some reason I'm missing and they need to go through a single
> tree?
>
> If they can go through multiple trees, can you split this patch up?
> AppArmor, Integrity/IMA, IPE, and SELinux are all maintained by
> different groups/people.

Sure, they're all independent so you can take the security bits through your
tree, I guess fairly easy for Andrew/David to figure out which went where?

Intentionally made these easy ones given how busy the cycle is, just keeping the
conversion rolling forward :)

--
Cheers, Lorenzo
```