On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 8:45 PM James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 6/5/2019 9:51 AM, Janne Karhunen wrote: > > > > > > One hook with an added "bool blocking" argument, if > > > that's the only difference? > > > > I think there is value in keeping a similar convention to the notifier > > code on which this is based, see include/linux/notifier.h. > > Although this doesn't seem to be what other users in the kernel are doing. How many of them potentially have the need for both blocking and non-blocking notifiers? I didn't go through the entire list of callers, but it seems all that I looked at used only one type. The simple fact that we started with one type of notifier for the LSM, and we are now switching to the other (and getting lucky that it is safe to do so for the existing callers) seems to lend some weight to the argument we may need both and adding "block"/"blocking"/etc. to the name has value. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
