[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200527123840.GA12958@google.com>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 14:38:40 +0200
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/4] bpf: Implement bpf_local_storage for inodes
On 26-May 22:08, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:33:34PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
> > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...gle.com>
> >
> > Similar to bpf_local_storage for sockets, add local storage for inodes.
> > The life-cycle of storage is managed with the life-cycle of the inode.
> > i.e. the storage is destroyed along with the owning inode.
> >
> > Since, the intention is to use this in LSM programs, the destruction is
> > done after security_inode_free in __destroy_inode.
>
> NAK onbloating the inode structure. Please find an out of line way
> to store your information.
The other alternative is to use lbs_inode (security blobs) and we can
do this without adding fields to struct inode.
Here is a rough diff (only illustrative, won't apply cleanly) of the
changes needed to this patch:
https://gist.github.com/sinkap/1d213d17fb82a5e8ffdc3f320ec37d79
Once tracing has gets a whitelist based access to inode storage, I
guess it, too, can use bpf_local_storage for inodes if CONFIG_BPF_LSM
is enabled. Does this sound reasonable to the BPF folks?
- KP
Powered by blists - more mailing lists