Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] lsm: add bpf_security_locked_down() kfunc
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-security-module,org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <099a7d68c7cffa7599e5227605f010906ffe0116fe7c2e6f9fa10804e33bd8ef@mail.kernel.org> |
> lsm: add bpf_security_locked_down() kfunc > > Add a new kfunc bpf_security_locked_down, which calls > security_locked_down and returns the result. > > Create a new file security/lsm_kfuncs.c for LSM framework kfuncs. > > Reject reasons outside (LOCKDOWN_NONE, LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX) > with -EINVAL before dispatching the hook. Limit the kfunc to > BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM and BPF_PROG_TYPE_SYSCALL programs, and refuse it > to programs attached to the locked_down hook itself, which would > recurse into the dispatch. > > Signed-off-by: Justin Suess <[email protected]> This isn't a bug, but could the changelog lead with the use case that motivates exposing security_locked_down() to BPF programs, instead of restating what each hunk does? --- AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/31882515336