Hi all, On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 19:40 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 6:03 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I tried proposing an idea in > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220609234601.2026362-1-kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > as an LSM_HOOK_NO_EFFECT but that did not seemed to have stuck. > > It looks like this was posted about a month before I became > responsible for the LSM layer as a whole, and likely was lost (at > least on the LSM side of things) as a result. > > I would much rather see a standalone fix to address the unintended LSM > interactions, then the static call performance improvements in a > separate patchset. Please allow me to revive this old thread. I learned about this effort only recently and I'm interested into it. Looking at patch 4/4 from this series, it *think* it's doable to extract it from the series and make it work standalone. If so, would that approach be ok from a LSM point of view? One thing that I personally don't understand in said patch is how the '__ro_after_init' annotation for the bpf_lsm_hooks fits the run-time 'default_state' changes?!? Cheers, Paolo
