Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] lsm: give BPF programs a way to query locked_down state

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 4:33 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 4:16 PM David Windsor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 3:48 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 1:42 PM David Windsor <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 5:43 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Lastly, given the difficulties we've faced from the LSM maintainers, I'm not
> > > > > inclined to waste more time in explaining again why this cannot go under
> > > > > security/.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm still going to send v7 of bpf_init_inode_xattr series, even though
> > > > it's a stalemate. Haven't yet decided where it'll live in v7, I'm
> > > > inclined to leave it where it was (in fs/) since one side will NAK it
> > > > wherever it lives. We can record NAKs and take it from there.
> > >
> > > As a FYI, I'm not going to ACK any of the LSM changes with the kfunc
> > > in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c.
> >
> > Hmm, even if it lands in security/ you'd not ACK it?
>
> Bah, a typo on my part, my apologies!  What I had meant to say was
> that I'm not going to ACK any of the LSM changes with the kfunc *not*
> in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c.  Sorry for the confusion.
>

Makes sense, thanks. I'll send it in the next week most likely.