linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add is_kernel parameter to LSM/bpf test programs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHC9VhQ1BHXfQSxMMbFtGDb2yVtBvuLD0b34=eSrCAKEtFq=OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:12:07 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, 
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, 
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, 
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, 
	Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, 
	KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>, 
	Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add is_kernel parameter to
 LSM/bpf test programs

On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:32 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:26 PM Blaise Boscaccy
> > <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:31 PM Blaise Boscaccy
> > > > <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> 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