Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling
Paul Moore <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 14:42:00 -0400
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-integrity,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.selinux |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHC9VhRK38bVU5+rYxwLsvVt0oBBSWs4xKsjexbvc3TuA9LVNQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM 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=E2=80=AFPM 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=E2=80=AFAM 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=E2=80=AFAM Paul Moore <paul@paul-mo= ore.com> wrote: ... > Yes, I understand you feel it should be placed under security/. You are e= ntitled > to your opinion. > > No, I do not think the newly added kfunc is a big enough layering violati= on such > that we need to do it ASAP, disregarding everything else outlined above. = I am > sure you see that too. There are several other instances of similar kfunc= s. > > Therefore, please attempt to meet me halfway here. I'm happy to work with you, and/or anyone else, who wants to work on finding a way to test kfuncs that live in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c. --=20 paul-moore.com