Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/9] add new acquire/release BPF kfuncs

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 4:55 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> There's one fundamental question here that we'll need an official answer to:
>
> Is it ok for an out-of-tree BPF LSM program, that nobody has ever seen
> to request access to various helpers in the kernel?

Phrased in a slightly different way, and a bit more generalized: do we
treat out-of-tree BPF programs the same as we do with out-of-tree
kernel modules?  I believe that's the real question, and if we answer
that, we should also have our answer for the internal helper function
question.

> Because fundamentally this is what this patchset is asking to be done.
>
> If the ZFS out-of-tree kernel module were to send us a similar patch
> series asking us for a list of 9 functions that they'd like us to export
> what would the answer to that be? It would be "no" - on principle alone.
>
> So what is different between an out-of-tree BPF LSM program that no one
> even has ever seen and an out-of-tree kernel module that one can at
> least look at in Github? Why should we reject requests from the latter
> but are supposed to accept requests from the former?
>
> If we say yes to the BPF LSM program requests we would have to say yes
> to ZFS as well.

-- 
paul-moore.com