On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:18 PM 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 PM 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 AM 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 AM Paul Moore <[email protected]> > >> >> > 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 violation > 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 kfuncs. > > 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. -- paul-moore.com
