linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/10] bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF based LSM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200211124448.GB96694@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:44:48 +0100
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>,
        Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...gle.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>,
        Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/10] bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF
 based LSM

On 10-Feb 15:58, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:24:33AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> > +
> > +static const struct bpf_func_proto *get_bpf_func_proto(
> > +	enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > +{
> > +	switch (func_id) {
> > +	case BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem:
> > +		return &bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto;
> > +	case BPF_FUNC_get_current_pid_tgid:
> > +		return &bpf_get_current_pid_tgid_proto;
> > +	default:
> > +		return NULL;
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +const struct bpf_verifier_ops lsm_verifier_ops = {
> > +	.get_func_proto = get_bpf_func_proto,
> > +};
> 
> Why artificially limit it like this?
> It will cause a lot of churn in the future. Like allowing map update and
> delete, in addition to lookup, will be an obvious next step.
> I think allowing tracing_func_proto() from the start is cleaner.

Sure, I will replace it to use tracing_func_proto in the next
revision.

- KP