On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:17 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Okay, it looks like there was some confusion/misunderstanding. > > My understanding of Kumar's comments was that he was referring to the > exisiting LSM related kfuncs that are located in fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c, > not necessarily the new kfunc you are proposing in this patchset. > Kumar is welcome to correct either one or both of us, if we read that > wrong :) >
Yes, after another reading, that does appear to be the case =). We'll need v7 anyway to fix the ocfs-related UAF the bot found. > However, regardless of Kumar's intent, speaking as the LSM maintainer, > my stance on this is that the kfunc you are proposing must live in > security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c to be acceptable. > Ack, will do this in v7. The Landlock series currently up for discussion [1] is proposing placing its kfuncs in a new kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c. Should these maybe go there? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]/ > -- > paul-moore.com
