Implement bpf_ima_inode_hash #405
Closed
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Master branch: 91b2db2 |
|
Master branch: 1c26ac6 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/390323=>bpf-next
branch
from
715b62a to
5033444
Compare
|
Master branch: 607c543 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/390323=>bpf-next
branch
from
5033444 to
7a57d6a
Compare
|
Master branch: 59e2e27 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/390323=>bpf-next
branch
from
7a57d6a to
eab1d40
Compare
This is in preparation to add a helper for BPF LSM programs to use IMA hashes when attached to LSM hooks. There are LSM hooks like inode_unlink which do not have a struct file * argument and cannot use the existing ima_file_hash API. An inode based API is, therefore, useful in LSM based detections like an executable trying to delete itself which rely on the inode_unlink LSM hook. Moreover, the ima_file_hash function does nothing with the struct file pointer apart from calling file_inode on it and converting it to an inode. Signed-off-by: KP Singh <[email protected]> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Acked-by: Mimi Zohar <[email protected]>
Provide a wrapper function to get the IMA hash of an inode. This helper is useful in fingerprinting files (e.g executables on execution) and using these fingerprints in detections like an executable unlinking itself. Since the ima_inode_hash can sleep, it's only allowed for sleepable LSM hooks. Signed-off-by: KP Singh <[email protected]> Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
The test does the following:
- Mounts a loopback filesystem and appends the IMA policy to measure
executions only on this file-system. Restricting the IMA policy to a
particular filesystem prevents a system-wide IMA policy change.
- Executes an executable copied to this loopback filesystem.
- Calls the bpf_ima_inode_hash in the bprm_committed_creds hook and
checks if the call succeeded and checks if a hash was calculated.
The test shells out to the added ima_setup.sh script as the setup is
better handled in a shell script and is more complicated to do in the
test program or even shelling out individual commands from C.
The list of required configs (i.e. IMA, SECURITYFS,
IMA_{WRITE,READ}_POLICY) for running this test are also updated.
Signed-off-by: KP Singh <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
|
Master branch: db13db9 |
kernel-patches-bot
force-pushed
the
series/390323=>bpf-next
branch
from
eab1d40 to
44da84d
Compare
|
At least one diff in series https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=390325 irrelevant now. Closing PR. |
kernel-patches-bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 2, 2021
For device removal and replace we call btrfs_find_device_by_devspec, which if we give it a device path and nothing else will call btrfs_get_dev_args_from_path, which opens the block device and reads the super block and then looks up our device based on that. However at this point we're holding the sb write "lock", so reading the block device pulls in the dependency of ->open_mutex, which produces the following lockdep splat ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.14.0-rc2+ #405 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ losetup/11576 is trying to acquire lock: ffff9bbe8cded938 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0 but task is already holding lock: ffff9bbe88e4fc68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #4 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750 lo_open+0x28/0x60 [loop] blkdev_get_whole+0x25/0xf0 blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x168/0x3c0 blkdev_open+0xd2/0xe0 do_dentry_open+0x161/0x390 path_openat+0x3cc/0xa20 do_filp_open+0x96/0x120 do_sys_openat2+0x7b/0x130 __x64_sys_openat+0x46/0x70 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae -> #3 (&disk->open_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x7d/0x750 blkdev_get_by_dev.part.0+0x56/0x3c0 blkdev_get_by_path+0x98/0xa0 btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb+0x1b/0xb0 btrfs_find_device_by_devspec+0x12b/0x1c0 btrfs_rm_device+0x127/0x610 btrfs_ioctl+0x2a31/0x2e70 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae -> #2 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}: lo_write_bvec+0xc2/0x240 [loop] loop_process_work+0x238/0xd00 [loop] process_one_work+0x26b/0x560 worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0 kthread+0x140/0x160 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #1 ((work_completion)(&lo->rootcg_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: process_one_work+0x245/0x560 worker_thread+0x55/0x3c0 kthread+0x140/0x160 ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 -> #0 ((wq_completion)loop0){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90 lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0 flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0 drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110 destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250 __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop] block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: (wq_completion)loop0 --> &disk->open_mutex --> &lo->lo_mutex Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&lo->lo_mutex); lock(&disk->open_mutex); lock(&lo->lo_mutex); lock((wq_completion)loop0); *** DEADLOCK *** 1 lock held by losetup/11576: #0: ffff9bbe88e4fc68 (&lo->lo_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __loop_clr_fd+0x41/0x660 [loop] stack backtrace: CPU: 0 PID: 11576 Comm: losetup Not tainted 5.14.0-rc2+ #405 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x72 check_noncircular+0xcf/0xf0 ? stack_trace_save+0x3b/0x50 __lock_acquire+0x10ea/0x1d90 lock_acquire+0xb5/0x2b0 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0 ? lockdep_init_map_type+0x47/0x220 flush_workqueue+0x91/0x5e0 ? flush_workqueue+0x67/0x5e0 ? verify_cpu+0xf0/0x100 drain_workqueue+0xa0/0x110 destroy_workqueue+0x36/0x250 __loop_clr_fd+0x9a/0x660 [loop] ? blkdev_ioctl+0x8d/0x2a0 block_ioctl+0x3f/0x50 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb0 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae RIP: 0033:0x7f31b02404cb Instead what we want to do is populate our device lookup args before we grab any locks, and then pass these args into btrfs_rm_device(). From there we can find the device and do the appropriate removal. Suggested-by: Anand Jain <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Anand Jain <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 29, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Acked-by: Stanislav Fomichev <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 30, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 1, 2023
…h cpu=v4 Bpf cpu=v4 support is introduced in [1] and Commit 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") added support for new 32bit offset jmp instruction. Unfortunately, in function bpf_adj_delta_to_off(), for new branch insn with 32bit offset, the offset (plus/minor a small delta) compares to 16-bit offset bound [S16_MIN, S16_MAX], which caused the following verification failure: $ ./test_progs-cpuv4 -t verif_scale_pyperf180 ... insn 10 cannot be patched due to 16-bit range ... libbpf: failed to load object 'pyperf180.bpf.o' scale_test:FAIL:expect_success unexpected error: -12 (errno 12) #405 verif_scale_pyperf180:FAIL Note that due to recent llvm18 development, the patch [2] (already applied in bpf-next) needs to be applied to bpf tree for testing purpose. The fix is rather simple. For 32bit offset branch insn, the adjusted offset compares to [S32_MIN, S32_MAX] and then verification succeeded. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] [2] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected] Fixes: 4cd58e9 ("bpf: Support new 32bit offset jmp instruction") Signed-off-by: Yonghong Song <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/[email protected]
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
kernel-patches-daemon-bpf bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2025
Use BPF_TRAMP_F_INDIRECT flag to detect struct ops and emit proper prologue and epilogue for this case. With this patch, all of the struct_ops related testcases (except struct_ops_multi_pages) passed on LoongArch. The testcase struct_ops_multi_pages failed is because the actual image_pages_cnt is 40 which is bigger than MAX_TRAMP_IMAGE_PAGES. Before: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... WATCHDOG: test case struct_ops_module/struct_ops_load executes for 10 seconds... After: $ sudo ./test_progs -t struct_ops -d struct_ops_multi_pages ... #15 bad_struct_ops:OK ... #399 struct_ops_autocreate:OK ... #400 struct_ops_kptr_return:OK ... #401 struct_ops_maybe_null:OK ... #402 struct_ops_module:OK ... #404 struct_ops_no_cfi:OK ... #405 struct_ops_private_stack:SKIP ... #406 struct_ops_refcounted:OK Summary: 8/25 PASSED, 3 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull request for series with
subject: Implement bpf_ima_inode_hash
version: 3
url: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=390325