On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 7:48 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 3:04 PM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 4:13 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 10:31 AM Blaise Boscaccy > > > <bbosca...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hacking into bpf internal objects like maps is not acceptable. > > > > > > > > We've heard your concerns about kern_sys_bpf and we agree that the LSM > > > > should not be calling it. The proposal in this email should meet both of > > > > our needs > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/874iypjl8t....@microsoft.com/ > > > > ... > > > > > Calling bpf_map_get() and > > > map->ops->map_lookup_elem() from a module is not ok either. > > > > A quick look uncovers code living under net/ which calls into these APIs. > > and your point is ?
Simply the observation that the APIs you've mentioned are currently being used by code living under net/; you're free to take from that whatever you will. > Again, Nack to hacking into bpf internals from LSM, > module or kernel subsystem. I heard you the first time and rest assured I've noted your general objection regarding use of the BPF API. I'm personally still interested in seeing a v3 before deciding on next steps as there were a number of other issues mentioned during the v2 review that need attention. I would encourage you to continue to participate in future reviews of Hornet, but of course that is entirely up to you. In the absence of any additional review feedback, I'll preserve your NACK if we ever get to a point that your comments are worth mentioning. -- paul-moore.com
