On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 6:53 PM Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

On May 23, 2026 11:25:55 AM Alexei Starovoitov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 6:06 PM Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 12:00 PM Paul Moore [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

If security_bpf_prog_load() fails there is no need to call into
security_bpf_prog_free() as the LSM will handle the cleanup of any partial
LSM state before returning to the caller with an error.  Thankfully this
isn't an issue with any of the existing code as the LSMs which currently
provide BPF hook callback implementations don't allocate any internal
state, but this is something we want to fix for potential future users.

Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
---
kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

Alexei, I'm assuming you would prefer to take this via the BPF tree?

Paul, I see that you're intentionally trying to piss me off.
It's not going to work :)

I promise you that is not the case. I was looking at the sashiko results of
the latest Hornet patch and it identified this potential issue in the error
handling code that is an issue independent of Hornet. I posted the quick
little patch above to fix the issue, and since the diffstat is solely in
kernel/bpf/syscall.c I figured you would want to merge it via the BPF tree;
if that is not the case let me know.

It's in a queue. You can monitor it here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=&submitter=&state=&q=&archive=&delegate=121173

But please be advised that when submitters ignore issues
found by bots and maintainers agree with bot findings
we mark patches as changes requested.