From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wr2-f2.google.com (mail-wr2-f2.google.com [74.125.225.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5178C372B32 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 20:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.225.66 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785529001; cv=none; b=DqmaCrGWTgwNtLG4hYZ+v9okwA+MdumUOBYJj6N92GarHJJOmDJJUBtNwDQE4gcPNjaCXZdapeInDEdMxOKrlDyHUYAPuSjDmxue4U/VXPG4uZGAUNBe9C5Ey3S3pC2eqopw3HpRr3spQBTWosi+RYHFNXn0rch4ZT4fvvVKE40= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785529001; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fT4Wh7zLimmN8YPV2rfhV4SibyXoX/Z38RLbsH3AQK4=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=Ofs89+GkkHOiPc78zOwuuAmfRGBA4E/2lHJNXOqi81Pacaeoz61TNnLUlcmdgbllJKx5tmewBlCdSINdoZJPEOfIOixBFUd5xuc1Zq+XuRuYeG2TUdXBhTqPF/QysZCqkJ2VczoTu957lN5HIGpUluB9tiL0Qj6Ijh9bjcAwvT4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=qsTVrI0k; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.225.66 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="qsTVrI0k" Received: by mail-wr2-f2.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-47f7f93b3d4so416582f8f.1 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:16:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1785528997; x=1786133797; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=jKBxHr4kakqx5giULQAhQrBpk8zyW3hvnaTsLQOKVHw=; b=qsTVrI0k9n+NaG5nRSTNcfGGTVu3qK0HTCtdPZzZ4nTOh0oiH+9HqnB+2YRwbMGrCJ mBTdljhXa3aHVXMBFKq1wkBkx/fs1RiufxfykPN8fX7wvmDunGFbHiZI3rwgsLZoskzd qiOH6zeAYvTQy54PtNPpu04WVBZIRx0/g0rcCUgZ8HiG57akUTRWRpiC9loFmoymXOAy c4ah1O5pK3kxmCgSUx1H/jRcOX/VZqCqlPNhYjX2OvxiKrl0FLZGkdb8LbhkRFnPapfF Vx1A2mPyIMb+5np+gO9GFTDQcMVXJP9pdPlP1BecWTcT8idK/mcLVxDQ2MvMmdpt8eLL tCVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1785528997; x=1786133797; h=in-reply-to:references:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:date :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=jKBxHr4kakqx5giULQAhQrBpk8zyW3hvnaTsLQOKVHw=; b=KE3sjh01Xi/bA/W4WDdt3nqNcxh4ZIX6bqZ/36uMAURPdCkcd+GhFJEbhhVjUbqImw zLhxkmw73y0Bk3WDN0T0z1m2c4ahuyOjBeztLx0THtH2urxHG9p74a8eAhbbKtDB1anR Sz6K42XjuPh4O5LhUN9Ai+OWVVAtY9vNPfOrBM6xz2xllwzbPDQ2gltEFWa7A4xfBd8a Z27MXQXX4RsCK3Pu1ozvmu7rdaQcVz4g4tmVBbR4f01AeSlSs5UHfCoE64CerUPTLQmf XbzfNsjezrxyQpAHswe3zEVfkhdNqR/+I6WKhi895/InP5Esk0zgfPzUFpw+vHlP05Jf 1ihw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+RqeNozsBH6VLvvAIKx3a1owChPY2CAErzy8ovC9Ej5b22NABJBylpWjncU2MqdySw4BRaI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzv8eIYL/8x8KFeyP0KgtIe8YKw5WrhDBpFZ2OTkZwiTe+uWLBE FNna0GVaXiLDteQl8NPjHmnEjyYHokMr5UovNOpkIFMzKCBQLBSt4yr9 X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD13NfirdDvAy0R3hpCBdEQvwGNwi7GtYAmwOE4wY/F5Pe9dLgb5QxR7O6/46BxQ 0AZxPwzVw8W41hI/1gubkaJkUoddo6UKd/K8xes7S4oovFPpFA0nyyQZqLSFBRCGlZPpZWPpgNy 73rw99mC5zhFJ5oEVIps4U93KExz7ifHck3Mh0L8dd1XsC3c1PkVYKKbwxcons7hEuiYXfs5y7d xUd9zGUasPuwE8484eK1JEezefGfgGPbKEasXz9NqzQF0h6GJ119M7TH1fegvvVQWs0JyuErz2Q uDEi4WbjCmiDSuwjpO+jhfEvL/h9vRcOGuJ83jjmwHV4jDNB3nVL5UDHOuGSQUdSE/FnFMnyM5J qO8n59D5fceCz1HfjDP5a85sW2J/L0NDgqi8MXBZJTGEutQF5Hpcefg/xc901z7KsU194OqFvU0 3jGWe1OiCkyZTUX/F/FzSAUlTTwKgox1PSk46qJu9L9qLr5zOiqMNvp4WQT3gPnwLXrbsWyuFSb 8kusGmiCiqGbmuzUP/p2NdXgdr2Lv3ICLfdUYU3IHFNU687ClIg6JHLVHpWjjzbjWvcyg+QyanW UuRjuHXEBYvlUB7f1hShrY2gIzU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:4205:b0:47f:77a8:7e20 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-47fd7308f0emr2136026f8f.35.1785528997285; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (nat-icclus-192-26-29-3.epfl.ch. [192.26.29.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-47fd458bf7csm8953678f8f.32.2026.07.31.13.16.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 22:16:36 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 3/4] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling From: "Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi" To: "Paul Moore" Cc: "David Windsor" , "Alexei Starovoitov" , "Daniel Borkmann" , "Andrii Nakryiko" , "Martin KaFai Lau" , "Eduard Zingerman" , "Song Liu" , "Yonghong Song" , "John Fastabend" , "KP Singh" , "Jiri Olsa" , "Emil Tsalapatis" , "Matt Bobrowski" , "James Morris" , "Serge E . Hallyn" , "Casey Schaufler" , "Stephen Smalley" , "Ondrej Mosnacek" , "Mimi Zohar" , "Roberto Sassu" , "Dmitry Kasatkin" , "Eric Snowberg" , "Alexander Viro" , "Christian Brauner" , "Jan Kara" , "Shuah Khan" , , , , , , , X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 References: <20260730234533.1912709-1-dwindsor@gmail.com> <20260730234533.1912709-4-dwindsor@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 10:01 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 3:20=E2=80=AFPM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi > wrote: >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 9:05 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:50=E2=80=AFPM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi >> > wrote: >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 8:42 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 2:18=E2=80=AFPM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 6:59 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 12:32=E2=80=AFPM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 6:02 PM CEST, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:44=E2=80=AFAM Kumar Kartikeya Dwiv= edi >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri Jul 31, 2026 at 5:30 PM CEST, David Windsor wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:17=E2=80=AFAM Paul Moore wrote: >> >> > >> >> > ... >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, I understand you feel it should be placed under security/. Yo= u are entitled >> >> >> to your opinion. >> >> >> >> >> >> No, I do not think the newly added kfunc is a big enough layering = violation such >> >> >> that we need to do it ASAP, disregarding everything else outlined = above. I am >> >> >> sure you see that too. There are several other instances of simila= r kfuncs. >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, please attempt to meet me halfway here. >> >> > >> >> > I'm happy to work with you, and/or anyone else, who wants to work o= n >> >> > finding a way to test kfuncs that live in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c= . >> >> >> >> Right, and for that file to exist, you need to get everyone (FS, BPF = folks) to >> >> agree on whether placing all such kfuncs there makes sense. It is not= for both >> >> of us to decide on our own. So let's revisit this whole topic once yo= u've done >> >> that exercise. >> > >> > The kfunc that David has proposed must be located in >> > security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c, similar to the VFS kfuncs and >> > fs/bpf_fs_kfuncs.c. If you read David's bpf_init_inode_xattr() kfunc >> >> Sigh. >> >> I now went and read the archives, and Christian already told you no befo= re [0], >> which I missed in my first read. So two people whom this code affects al= ready >> objected to your proposal. > > As mentioned previously, David's kfunc has nothing to do with the VFS. > Look at the code if you haven't already and you'll see what I mean. > The only relevance to the VFS is the fact that "inode" and "xattr" are > used in the name; David's currently proposed kfunc is an LSM kfunc, > not a VFS kfunc. I am sorry, I read it and I don't see why it is an LSM kfunc. It is absolut= ely a VFS kfunc, that is using LSM APIs to some end. The LSM specific bits are al= ready in security/. At the very least, it is a mix of both, but definitely not one or the other= . Therefore, the situation is already ideal, code owned by different people i= s in the files they signed up to maintain. > > If you find yourself required to abide by Christian's comment, despite > this not being a VFS kfunc, that's fine, but this puts us at a > stalemate and David will need to find another approach for his work. Paul, let me remind you of another email you sent [0], in which you contrad= ict yourself. I don't know what caused you to get confused over the month. In it, you tell David to move *LSM* bits into security_lsmxattr_add(), whic= h has been done in patch 2. Thus, by your own characterization, it means the rest= is *not LSM* code. Quoting you verbatim: > As I said previously, if you absolutely insist on the kfunc being in > the VFS kfunc file, the LSM specific bits need to be abstracted out ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > into an LSM function. You yourself made the point in that same email that the kfunc can stay in t= he current file once LSM bits were moved out, and your request was honored. At this point, anybody reading this thread will only see your position as a= way to undermine David's work and waste everyone's time, such that you can grin= d an axe against BPF folks. It's a repeating pattern. I tried my best to engage in good faith, but it is clearly not working. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAHC9VhQd0-N1g=3Dg8gspeV7bhLz0LA6DF5HZyB7= mW6VW_7oSt2w@mail.gmail.com