Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Add new way to add BPF LSM hooks

["Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>]

On Mon Aug 31, 2026 at 4:09 AM PDT, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> The BPF LSM programs are allowed to attach to LSM hooks. This enables
> operators to mitigate known bugs without a need to reboot or livepatch
> machines.  BPF has shown very useful to create such runtime policies.
> However, many APIs and parts of kernel aren't covered by existing LSM
> hooks and this would be beneficial to extend the coverage.
>
> To simplify the process of adding new hooks this patch series enables
> BPF to attach policy programs to hooks defined outside of the
> official LSM list.
>
> One of the reasons to add a new mechanism is that in order to add a
> new LSM hook an implementation, at least one in-kernel LSM must be
> added, such as SELinux or AppArmor, and BPF is specifically not
> considered as a reference implementation [1].  This is, however, not
> feasible for the use cases and capabilities covered by BPF LSMs,
> which are not directly comparable to those of traditional LSMs.

This is no go.
bpf-lsm can attach to lsm hooks, but the machinery has nothing to
do with LSM. bpf-lsm is exactly the same as bpf-mod-ret.
So calling everything LSM is actively misleading and wrong.
Patch 1 starts this misleading naming convention
and then later patches add fake LSM hooks. Sorry, but no.

pw-bot: cr