On 26-May 22:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:33:34PM +0200, KP Singh wrote: > > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets, add local storage for inodes. > > The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of the inode. > > i.e. the storage is destroyed along with the owning inode. > > > > Since, the intention is to use this in LSM programs, the destruction is > > done after security_inode_free in __destroy_inode. > > NAK onbloating the inode structure. Please find an out of line way > to store your information. The other alternative is to use lbs_inode (security blobs) and we can do this without adding fields to struct inode. Here is a rough diff (only illustrative, won't apply cleanly) of the changes needed to this patch: https://gist.github.com/sinkap/1d213d17fb82a5e8ffdc3f320ec37d79 Once tracing has gets a whitelist based access to inode storage, I guess it, too, can use bpf_local_storage for inodes if CONFIG_BPF_LSM is enabled. Does this sound reasonable to the BPF folks? - KP
