On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? I will rev up the series again. I think it's worth fixing both issues (performance and this side-effect). There are more users who have been asking me for performance improvements for LSMs > > 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 >
