Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling

On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 10:46 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 7:11 PM David Windsor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 6:23 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 6:04 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 11:49 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 5:29 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 10:48 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 4:16 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 10:01 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 3:20 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 9:05 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:50 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 8:42 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:18 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 6:59 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 12:32 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 6:02 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:44 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 5:30 PM CEST, David Windsor wrote:
> > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:17 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > As a consequence, everyone suffers because they first need to satisfy your whims
> > > > on how all code and kfuncs written thus far are wrong, and need to be moved
> > > > around ASAP, including the one being proposed.
> > >
> > > That's not a reasonble or truthful summary of things, I've only
> > > requested that David locate his proposed kfunc in
> > > security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c, I never suggested he move any others.
> >
> > Looking at what's left of the kfunc itself, it's basically nothing.
> > Everything meaningful has been moved into security/ already.
> >
> > Aside from bpf dynptr ops, what's left is:
> >
> > if (!name__str)
> >     return -EINVAL;
> >
> > if (strncmp(name__str, XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX, sizeof(XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX) - 1))
> >     return -EPERM;
> >
> > if (!xattrs->xattrs)
> >     return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >
> > ... then a call to security_lsmxattr_add. Why not move this chunk into
> > security_lsmxattr_add, and leave the remaining bits, which are pure
> > bpf, in fs/ for now, and litigate the total placement of all of them
> > once v7 lands?
>
> Thanks David, but my comments and decision are based on the kfunc as a
> whole, not necessarily how the work is divided between the kfunc and
> the LSM hook it calls; shuffling bits of code between the two doesn't
> change the character of the function.

To be clear, this means I would still need to see the proposed kfunc
in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c to be deemed acceptable.  Also to be
clear, I'm not suggesting, or even requiring, that you move any of the
other existing kfuncs in your patchset; I never suggested that as a
requirement for your work.

-- 
paul-moore.com