Hi, I'm sorry for the duplicate, I did a quick reply via the gmail UI and that unintentionally inserted html. Retrying with a real email client. On Sat, 2023-09-16 at 02:57 +0200, KP Singh wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 FTR, I'm also very interested in the performance side of the thing. My understanding is that Paul asks the 'side-effect' issue being addressed before/separately. To that extent I shared a slightly different approach here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx/ with the hope it could be 'cleaner' and allow building the indirect call avoidance on top. I would appreciate it if you could take a look there, too! Thanks, Paolo
