[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ6uc4fbRMNmj3kFeSu=V2JqWruJLFjMnPet_HXW-EdRng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 02:55:25 +0100
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf: Add tests for task_local_storage
[...]
> >
> > I saw the docs mention that these are not exposed to tracing programs due to
> > insufficient preemption checks. Do you think it would be okay to allow them
> > for LSM programs?
>
> hmm. Isn't it allowed already?
> The verifier does:
> if ((is_tracing_prog_type(prog_type) ||
> prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER) &&
> map_value_has_spin_lock(map)) {
> verbose(env, "tracing progs cannot use bpf_spin_lock yet\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM is not in this list.
The verifier does not have any problem, it's just that the helpers are not
exposed to LSM programs via bpf_lsm_func_proto.
So all we need is:
diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
index 61f8cc52fd5b..93383df2140b 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
@@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ bpf_lsm_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const
struct bpf_prog *prog)
return &bpf_task_storage_get_proto;
case BPF_FUNC_task_storage_delete:
return &bpf_task_storage_delete_proto;
+ case BPF_FUNC_spin_lock:
+ return &bpf_spin_lock_proto;
+ case BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock:
+ return &bpf_spin_unlock_proto;
default:
return tracing_prog_func_proto(func_id, prog);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists