[PATCH bpf-next 0/2] lsm: give BPF programs a way to query locked_down state

[Xiujianfeng]

+cc Nicolas

On 8/15/2026 7:20 PM, Justin Suess wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> BPF programs can attach to the locked_down LSM hook and contribute a
> verdict, but they have never been able to ask the locked_down question
> themselves: there is no way for a program to invoke the hook and learn
> whether a given operation is locked down. (i.e be a caller of
> security_locked_down rather than a consumer).
> 
> Today the state has to be fed in out of band, for example userspace
> reading /sys/kernel/security/lockdown and writing the result into a
> map. That is a time-of-check/time-of-use race: a security_locked_down
> verdict can be raised at runtime, so the cached answer can be stale
> by the time the program acts on it.

Adding the bpf_security_locked_down() kfunc does not actually solve the
TOCTOU issue you mentioned. Even after bpf_security_locked_down() is
called, userspace can still change the lockdown state via /sys/kernel/
security/lockdown.

I fail to see the necessity for a BPF program to know whether a specific
operation is locked down. The test case provided in patch 2 does not
clearly demonstrate a scenario where this is required. In my view, the
verdict should happen exactly where security_locked_down() is currently 
invoked.

Furthermore, based on the current implementation of Lockdown, integrity
is the prerequisite for confidentiality. It is designed to be coarse-
grained and does not support per-operation lockdown. The fact that LSM
BPF can already hook into locked_down seems to violate this foundational
model, this is is analogous to the bitmap implementation [1], I’m
considering whether we should restrict BPF from attaching to the
locked_down hook. Nicolas, what are your thoughts on this?

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250728111517.134116-1-nik.borisov@suse.com/

> 
> Add a bpf_security_locked_down() kfunc that calls
> security_locked_down() and returns its verdict, letting LSM and
> syscall programs query locked_down state at decision time. Out-of-range
> reasons are rejected with -EINVAL before dispatching the hook, and the
> kfunc is refused to programs attached to the locked_down hook itself,
> which would recurse into the dispatch. (how the obvious recursion issue
> is addressed).
> 
> As this is the first pure-lsm-hook kfunc, add a new file security/lsm_kfuncs.c
> to host it.
> 
> This kfunc has no reliance on / relation to the Lockdown LSM, despite the
> similar naming. It is an LSM-agnostic caller of security_locked_down, and
> Lockdown just happens to be the only in-tree subscriber to this hook at the
> moment.
> 
> In fact, the test environment does not rely on CONFIG_SECURITY_LOCKDOWN at
> all, and uses a BPF implementation of security_locked_down.
> 
> This kfunc can cause notices to be printed with kmsg if the Lockdown LSM is
> enabled due to this line in security/lockdown/lockdown.c:
> 
>    pr_notice_ratelimited("Lockdown: %s: %s is restricted; see man kernel_lockdown.7\n",
> 				                 current->comm, lockdown_reasons[what]);
> 
> Patch 1 adds the kfunc, patch 2 the selftests. This is based on bpf-next/master, but
> applies cleanly to the lsm tree.
> 
> Justin
> 
> Justin Suess (2):
>    lsm: add bpf_security_locked_down() kfunc
>    selftests/bpf: Test bpf_security_locked_down kfunc
> 
>   security/Makefile                             |  1 +
>   security/lsm_kfuncs.c                         | 84 +++++++++++++++++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lsm_kfuncs.c     | 28 +++++++
>   .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_kfuncs.c  | 34 ++++++++
>   .../selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_kfuncs_fail.c     | 26 ++++++
>   5 files changed, 173 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 security/lsm_kfuncs.c
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lsm_kfuncs.c
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_kfuncs.c
>   create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_kfuncs_fail.c
> 
> 
> base-commit: d82ebfc685c91e7f5623a8be949da1ddb767420b