Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/8] bpf, lsm: Let BPF LSM provide xattrs at inode creation

[Paul Moore]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 3:14 PM David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This implementation was chosen due to its immediate mergeability (it
> only touches security/bpf) ...

Ooops, I hit send on my reply to you too soon.

It's worth mentioning that sometimes maintainer objections/NACKs can
cross subsystem boundaries.  You may not have followed it, but a while
ago a LSM was proposed that implemented BPF program load access
controls and it was successfully NACK'd by the BPF devs, despite it
not touching any BPF code.  An argument was made that the proposed LSM
manipulated internal BPF state (there were arguments on both sides of
that topic), similar to what the proposed BPF kfunc is doing with the
LSM framework.

Hopefully we won't have a repeat situation here, but it is worth
knowing that code location alone doesn't necessarily equate to
"immediate mergeability" based on recent history.

-- 
paul-moore.com