From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8946DC4360C for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B9DC2064B for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="GY891JeY" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390532AbfJPILT (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:11:19 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:42686 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389335AbfJPILS (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:11:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yhp7/wioyWdXQ41hYrVkjHUb5LQ88gTZsVFVxqZKTWk=; b=GY891JeYC2clnL7e+YPp0VCD4 rHxKPcTwcGHFJ4Jdkx8VbhwuvztYlZ5GVzfxjhY66QeRmebKcEc/rwaxjbO1G1NDuWAo7UMD5Yyma fm/dQx5Eu6TdhNaymWtYNr0vu9QCqFiZtWaQNiLRewZGRuJWBscXxOE3q/TyYih0/EzM1iXEc7QgT D7Jl9mW+p5tfUYF8L4IaOJVmBwzIS7A7e9O6M4sMDqFGefPIppiuThSr3rhY7kZKaeWClElJ/kI/A j5yDOsZIr0jmreVFFVXnOyO5V9GGhHyDqGuHUlCYXCNedfsSE2ngWoapfXC97wvkTSv2Qaeg2vsA2 k/H4sivjA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iKeOH-0003kn-Al; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 08:10:41 +0000 Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFB60305BD3; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:09:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B806020B972E4; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:10:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:10:36 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Stephen Smalley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, primiano@google.com, rsavitski@google.com, jeffv@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, James Morris , Alexei Starovoitov , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Olsa , Kees Cook , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, Matthew Garrett , Namhyung Kim , selinux@vger.kernel.org, Song Liu , "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , Yonghong Song Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks Message-ID: <20191016081036.GN2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20191014170308.70668-1-joel@joelfernandes.org> <20191016003500.GC89937@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191016003500.GC89937@google.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 08:35:00PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Peter, if you are Ok with it, could you squash the below diff into my > original patch? But let me know if you want me to resend the whole patch > again. Thanks. Folded thanks! I had assumed it was required such that selinux/apparmour/etc.. could use these values from their policy. If that is not required, then moving them private is indeed the right thing.