On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:32 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:26 PM Blaise Boscaccy > > <bboscaccy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:31 PM Blaise Boscaccy > > > > <bboscaccy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > Do we need this in the LSM tree before the upcoming merge window? > If not, we would prefer to carry it in bpf-next. As long as we can send this up to Linus during the upcoming merge window I'll be happy; if you feel strongly and want to take it via the BPF tree, that's fine by me. I'm currently helping someone draft a patchset to implement the LSM/SELinux access control LSM callbacks for the BPF tokens and I'm also working on a fix for the LSM framework initialization code, both efforts may land in a development tree during the next dev cycle and may cause a merge conflict with Blaise's changes. Not that a merge conflict is a terrible thing that we can't work around, but if we can avoid it I'd be much happier :) Please do make the /is_kernel/kernel/ change I mentioned in patch 1/2, and feel free to keep my ACK from this patchset revision. Thanks everyone! -- paul-moore.com
