linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.10 04/19] bpf: Add _kernel suffix to internal lockdown_bpf

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: <f42f4fbb-3777-6e5b-0daf-6fdb2cc707b8@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 23:57:58 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 04/19] bpf: Add _kernel suffix to internal
 lockdown_bpf_read

Hi Pavel,

On 8/13/21 9:55 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>>
>> commit 71330842ff93ae67a066c1fa68d75672527312fa upstream.
>>
>> Rename LOCKDOWN_BPF_READ into LOCKDOWN_BPF_READ_KERNEL so we have naming
>> more consistent with a LOCKDOWN_BPF_WRITE_USER option that we are
>> adding.
> 
> As far as I can tell, next bpf patch does not depend on this one and
> we don't need it in 5.10. (Likely same situation with 5.13).

Yeah, it's nice to have for consistency given also small as well, but
also fully okay to drop it as there shouldn't be any conflict.

Thanks,
Daniel