On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 5:29 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 10:48 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 4:16 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 10:01 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 3:20 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 9:05 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:50 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 8:42 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: > >> >> >> > 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:
... > I think you keep forgetting that you cannot unilaterally decide this. Both VFS > and BPF people have told you that it does not make sense. What was clearly LSM > specific code has been moved under security/ already. I'm charged with doing the Right Thing for the LSM framework, and in my opinion it is in the best interest of the LSM framework that the kfunc being proposed lives in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c, just as the VFS kfuncs live in fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c. > The right way to do address that is to get people who added and maintain that > code to agree with you ... I think that statement should be read by everyone, including the original author ;) >From what I can see the only issue we disagree on is the location of the kfunc in the codebase. Based on your earlier comments your concern about the location was based around testing, review, etc. while my primary concern about the location was based around the content, calling context, and general behavior of the hook with secondary concerns around visibility, code ownership, etc. Once again, I believe your review concerns are already addressed by our standard process around cross-subsystem reviews, and I'm happy to work with you, or anyone else, to address the testing issues. If you are unable or unwilling to work on resolving your testing concerns then we are at a stalemate as previously mentioned (a few times now). -- paul-moore.com
