[PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls

[Paolo Abeni]

Hi,

I'm sorry for the duplicate, I did a quick reply via the gmail UI and
that unintentionally inserted html. Retrying with a real email client.

On Sat, 2023-09-16 at 02:57 +0200, KP Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 1:07 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Looking at patch 4/4 from this series, it *think* it's doable to
> > extract it from the series and make it work standalone. If so, would
> > that approach be ok from a LSM point of view?
> 
> I will rev up the series again. I think it's worth fixing both issues
> (performance and this side-effect). There are more users who have been
> asking me for performance improvements for LSMs

FTR, I'm also very interested in the performance side of the thing.

My understanding is that Paul asks the 'side-effect' issue being
addressed before/separately.

To that extent I shared a slightly different approach here:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/cover.1691082677.git.pabeni@redhat.com/

with the hope it could be 'cleaner' and allow building the indirect
call avoidance on top.

I would appreciate it if you could take a look there, too!

Thanks,

Paolo