Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/2] bpf: add bpf_init_inode_xattr kfunc for atomic inode labeling

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 8:49 PM David Windsor <dwind...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 7:57 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu Jun 18, 2026 at 1:34 PM PDT, David Windsor wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static int __bpf_init_inode_xattr(struct xattr_ctx *xattr_ctx,
> > > +                               const char *name__str,
> > > +                               const struct bpf_dynptr *value_p)
> > > +{
> > > +     struct bpf_dynptr_kern *value_ptr = (struct bpf_dynptr_kern 
> > > *)value_p;
> > > +     size_t name_len;
> > > +     void *xattr_value;
> > > +     struct xattr *xattr;
> > > +     struct xattr *xattrs;
> > > +     int *xattr_count;
> > > +     const void *value;
> > > +     u32 value_len;
> > > +
> > > +     if (!xattr_ctx || !name__str)
> > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +     xattrs = xattr_ctx->xattrs;
> > > +     xattr_count = xattr_ctx->xattr_count;
> > > +     if (!xattrs || !xattr_count)
> > > +             return -EINVAL;
> > > +     if (bpf_xattrs_used(xattr_ctx) >= BPF_LSM_INODE_INIT_XATTRS)
> > > +             return -ENOSPC;
> >
> > This check is good to have, but it's enough. No need to duplicate it.
> > More below.
> >
>
> > > +
> > >  static int bpf_fs_kfuncs_filter(const struct bpf_prog *prog, u32 
> > > kfunc_id)
> > >  {
> > >       if (!btf_id_set8_contains(&bpf_fs_kfunc_set_ids, kfunc_id) ||
> > > -         prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > > +         prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> > > +             /* bpf_init_inode_xattr only attaches to 
> > > inode_init_security. */
> > > +             if (kfunc_id == bpf_init_inode_xattr_btf_ids[0] &&
> > > +                 prog->aux->attach_btf_id != 
> > > bpf_lsm_inode_init_security_btf_ids[0])
> > > +                     return -EACCES;
> >
> > This is unnecessary. Only one hook will have xattr_ctx type.
> > The normal verifier type enforcement will do its work.
> >
>
> Good point, thanks.
>
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > index 1a721fc4bef5..b41b02173e24 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > > @@ -859,6 +859,9 @@ static int bpf_trampoline_add_prog(struct 
> > > bpf_trampoline *tr,
> > >       }
> > >       if (cnt >= BPF_MAX_TRAMP_LINKS)
> > >               return -E2BIG;
> > > +     if (node->link->prog->aux->attach_limit &&
> > > +         tr->progs_cnt[kind] >= node->link->prog->aux->attach_limit)
> > > +             return -E2BIG;
> >
> > No need. The check inside kfunc is enough.
> >
>
> Paul wanted this check because it occurs at bpf prog attach time,
> whereas the one in the kfunc is at inode creation time.

Sorry, we're not adding redundant code to the verifier.