On Sat Aug 1, 2026 at 1:11 AM CEST, David Windsor wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 6:23 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 6:04 PM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 11:49 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: >> > > 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: >> >> ... >> >> > As a consequence, everyone suffers because they first need to satisfy your >> > whims >> > on how all code and kfuncs written thus far are wrong, and need to be moved >> > around ASAP, including the one being proposed. >> >> That's not a reasonble or truthful summary of things, I've only >> requested that David locate his proposed kfunc in >> security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c, I never suggested he move any others. >> > > Looking at what's left of the kfunc itself, it's basically nothing. > Everything meaningful has been moved into security/ already. > > Aside from bpf dynptr ops, what's left is: > > if (!name__str) > return -EINVAL; >
You can actually lose this one, the verifier should prevent passing NULL for name__str. Other functions don't check it either. Feel free to check it, or add a negative test in case you're worried about it. > if (strncmp(name__str, XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX, sizeof(XATTR_BPF_LSM_SUFFIX) - > 1)) > return -EPERM; > > if (!xattrs->xattrs) > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > ... then a call to security_lsmxattr_add. Why not move this chunk into > security_lsmxattr_add, and leave the remaining bits, which are pure > bpf, in fs/ for now, and litigate the total placement of all of them > once v7 lands? > I wouldn't bother, everything LSM specific is already where it belongs. That said, your question is a good demonstration of the absurdity of the ask here. >> -- >> paul-moore.com
