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

On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 8:42 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote:
> 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-m=
oore.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Yes, I understand you feel it should be placed under security/. You are =
entitled
>> to your opinion.
>>
>> No, I do not think the newly added kfunc is a big enough layering violat=
ion 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 kfun=
cs.
>>
>> 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.

Right, and for that file to exist, you need to get everyone (FS, BPF folks)=
 to
agree on whether placing all such kfuncs there makes sense. It is not for b=
oth
of us to decide on our own. So let's revisit this whole topic once you've d=
one
that exercise.