On Tue Jun 30, 2026 at 12:20 PM PDT, Paul Moore wrote:
>> +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_init_inode_xattr(struct lsm_xattrs *xattrs,
>> + const char *name__str,
>> + const struct bpf_dynptr *value_p)
>> +{
>> + struct bpf_dynptr_kern *value_ptr = (struct bpf_dynptr_kern
>> *)value_p;
>> + size_t name_len;
>> + void *xattr_value;
>> + struct xattr *xattr;
>> + const void *value;
>> + u32 value_len;
>> +
>> + if (!xattrs || !xattrs->xattrs || !name__str)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (bpf_xattrs_used(xattrs) >= BPF_LSM_INODE_INIT_XATTRS)
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> +
>> + name_len = strlen(name__str);
>> + if (name_len == 0 || name_len > XATTR_NAME_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + if (strncmp(name__str, XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX,
>> + sizeof(XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX) - 1))
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +
>> + value_len = __bpf_dynptr_size(value_ptr);
>> + if (value_len == 0 || value_len > XATTR_SIZE_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + value = __bpf_dynptr_data(value_ptr, value_len);
>> + if (!value)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /* Combine xattr value + name into one allocation. */
>> + xattr_value = kmalloc(value_len + name_len + 1, GFP_NOFS);
>> + if (!xattr_value)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + memcpy(xattr_value, value, value_len);
>> + memcpy(xattr_value + value_len, name__str, name_len);
>> + ((char *)xattr_value)[value_len + name_len] = '\0';
>> +
>> + xattr = lsm_get_xattr_slot(xattrs);
>> + if (!xattr) {
>> + kfree(xattr_value);
>> + return -ENOSPC;
>> + }
>> +
>> + xattr->value = xattr_value;
>> + xattr->name = (const char *)xattr_value + value_len;
>> + xattr->value_len = value_len;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> This is not a generic VFS function, it is a LSM specific function, it
> belongs under security/, please move the code as discussed previously.
Paul,
Not quite. It's all about xattrs.
Having "struct lsm_xattrs" in the arguments doesn't make it lsm related.
You needs to study existing kfuncs and tracepoints.
A bunch of them have "*lsm*" in the arguments.
All,
CI found issues, so this set needs another respin.
After that it's hopefully good to go.
David,
you're on the right track. The patchset is getting close.
Thank you for working on it.
