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 <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> + * 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
