On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:08 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > My preference is to go via bpf-next, since changes are bigger > on bpf side than on lsm side. Fine by me, the patch has my ACK already. -- paul-moore.com
