On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 1:32 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 07:14:20PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 4:03 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:38:50 -0700, Song Liu wrote: > > > > Introduce a new kfunc bpf_cgroup_read_xattr, which can read xattr from > > > > cgroupfs nodes. The primary users are LSMs, cgroup programs, and sched_ext. > > > > > > > > > > Applied to the vfs-6.17.bpf branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree. > > > Patches in the vfs-6.17.bpf branch should appear in linux-next soon. > > > > Thanks. > > Now merged into bpf-next/master as well. > > > > > Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a > > > new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it. > > > > bugs :( > > > > > It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the > > > patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated. > > > > Pls don't. Keep it as-is, otherwise there will be merge conflicts > > during the merge window. > > This is just the common blurb. As soon as another part of the tree > relies on something we stabilize the branch and only do fixes on top and > never rebase. We usually recommend just pulling the branch which I think > you did. > > > > > > Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase, > > > trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch. > > > > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git > > > branch: vfs-6.17.bpf > > > > > > [1/4] kernfs: remove iattr_mutex > > > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/d1f4e9026007 > > > [2/4] bpf: Introduce bpf_cgroup_read_xattr to read xattr of cgroup's node > > > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/535b070f4a80 > > > [3/4] bpf: Mark cgroup_subsys_state->cgroup RCU safe > > > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/1504d8c7c702 > > > [4/4] selftests/bpf: Add tests for bpf_cgroup_read_xattr > > > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/f4fba2d6d282 > > > > Something wrong with this selftest. > > Cleanup is not done correctly. > > > > ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup > > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup > > Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > ./test_progs -t cgroup_xattr > > Summary: 1/8 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED > > ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:PASS:bind(ETH_P_ALL) 0 nsec > > (network_helpers.c:121: errno: Cannot assign requested address) Failed > > to bind socket > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:start_server unexpected start_server: > > actual -1 < expected 0 > > (network_helpers.c:360: errno: Bad file descriptor) getsockopt(SOL_PROTOCOL) > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:connect_to_fd unexpected > > connect_to_fd: actual -1 < expected 0 > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:accept unexpected accept: actual -1 < expected 0 > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:getsockopt unexpected getsockopt: > > actual -1 < expected 0 > > test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:sk_priority unexpected sk_priority: > > actual 0 != expected 234 > > ... > > Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED > > > > > > Song, > > Please follow up with the fix for selftest. > > It will be in bpf-next only. > > We should put that commit on the shared vfs-6.17.bpf branch. The branch had a conflict with bpf-next which was resolved in the merge commit. Then _two_ fixes were applied on top. And one fix is right where conflict was. So it's not possible to apply both fixes to vfs-6.17.bpf. imo this shared branch experience wasn't good. We should have applied the series to bpf-next only. It was more bpf material than vfs. I wouldn't do this again.
