On 2/24/2026 6:44 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 5:21 PM Paul Moore <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not going to argue with that, and perhaps that is a good next >> step: send a quick RFC patch to the VFS folks, with the LSM list CC'd, >> that drops setting the S_PRIVATE flag to see if they complain too >> loudly. Based on other threads, Christian is aware that we are >> starting to look at better/proper handling of pidfds/pidfs so he may >> be open to dropping S_PRIVATE since it doesn't really have much impact >> outside of the LSM, but who knows; the VFS folks have been growing a >> bit more anti-LSM as of late. > Adding S_PRIVATE to pidfs inodes was originally motivated by this bug report: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/ > when pidfs was first introduced as its own distinct filesystem type. > Otherwise, Fedora (and likely any other system enforcing SELinux) > stopped working.
Woof. Not a hill I'm willing to receive even minor injuries on. Carry on.
