Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] lsm: give BPF programs a way to query locked_down state

[David Windsor]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 3:48 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 1:42 PM David Windsor <dwindsor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 5:43 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
> > <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Lastly, given the difficulties we've faced from the LSM maintainers, I'm not
> > > inclined to waste more time in explaining again why this cannot go under
> > > security/.
> > >
> >
> > I'm still going to send v7 of bpf_init_inode_xattr series, even though
> > it's a stalemate. Haven't yet decided where it'll live in v7, I'm
> > inclined to leave it where it was (in fs/) since one side will NAK it
> > wherever it lives. We can record NAKs and take it from there.
>
> As a FYI, I'm not going to ACK any of the LSM changes with the kfunc
> in security/bpf_lsm_kfuncs.c.
>

Hmm, even if it lands in security/ you'd not ACK it? I thought what
we'd settled on as acceptable from your end was placing it in
security/, then having a broader discussion about the rest of the fs
kfuncs? Just trying to understand everyone's position.