Comment # 6 on bug 1227282 from David Disseldorp

(In reply to Takashi Iwai from comment #5)
...
> Meanwhile, I wonder whether it's a regression in SLE15-SP6.  Didn't
> SLE15-SP5 show the same problem at all?

"bpf" appearing before the appended security=selinux LSM could well be
considered a regression due to:

origin/SLE15-SP5:config/x86_64/default:CONFIG_LSM="integrity,apparmor"
origin/SLE15-SP6:config/x86_64/default:CONFIG_LSM="integrity,apparmor,bpf"

I don't know what the best way to proceed here would be - perhaps we just
document the "lsm=" workaround?