On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 12:24 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Similar to XDP and some JITs, also added Brendan and Florent who have > been reviewing all my patches internally as reviewers. The patches are > still expected to go via the BPF tree / list / merge workflows. > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > index af9f6a3ab100..09c902bee5d2 100644 > --- a/MAINTAINERS > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > @@ -3366,6 +3366,17 @@ S: Supported > F: arch/x86/net/ > X: arch/x86/net/bpf_jit_comp32.c > > +BPF LSM (Security Audit and Enforcement using eBPF) > +M: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > +R: Florent Revest <revest@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > +R: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > +L: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > +S: Maintained > +F: Documentation/bpf/bpf_lsm.rst > +F: include/linux/bpf_lsm.h > +F: kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c > +F: security/bpf/ I'm not sure what's the value of the additional entry. bpf has many different components. This is just one of them. Your maintainer of bpf_lsm responsibilities stay the same regardless of the entry in the file.
