[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B6C7997A-8A4F-4859-9817-8F73F883CF93@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 22:30:29 +0000
From: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
CC: Song Liu <songliubraving@...a.com>,
Casey Schaufler
<casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
"Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>, Song Liu
<song@...nel.org>,
"bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...a.com>,
"andrii@...nel.org" <andrii@...nel.org>,
"eddyz87@...il.com"
<eddyz87@...il.com>,
"ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
"daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"martin.lau@...ux.dev"
<martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"brauner@...nel.org" <brauner@...nel.org>,
"jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"kpsingh@...nel.org" <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"mattbobrowski@...gle.com"
<mattbobrowski@...gle.com>,
"amir73il@...il.com" <amir73il@...il.com>,
"repnop@...gle.com" <repnop@...gle.com>,
"jlayton@...nel.org"
<jlayton@...nel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
"mic@...ikod.net"
<mic@...ikod.net>,
"gnoack@...gle.com" <gnoack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Make inode storage available to tracing prog
Hi James,
Thanks for your input!
> On Nov 14, 2024, at 1:49 PM, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Actually, I can understand the concern with union. Although,
>> the logic is set at kernel compile time, it is still possible
>> for kernel source code to use i_bpf_storage when
>> CONFIG_SECURITY is enabled. (Yes, I guess now I finally understand
>> the concern).
>>
>> We can address this with something like following:
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
>> void *i_security;
>> #elif CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
>> struct bpf_local_storage __rcu *i_bpf_storage;
>> #endif
>>
>> This will help catch all misuse of the i_bpf_storage at compile
>> time, as i_bpf_storage doesn't exist with CONFIG_SECURITY=y.
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>
> Got to say I'm with Casey here, this will generate horrible and failure
> prone code.
Yes, as I described in another email in the thread [1], this turned
out to cause more troubles than I thought.
> Since effectively you're making i_security always present anyway,
> simply do that and also pull the allocation code out of security.c in a
> way that it's always available?
I think this is a very good idea. If folks agree with this approach,
I am more than happy to draft patch for this.
Thanks again,
Song
> That way you don't have to special
> case the code depending on whether CONFIG_SECURITY is defined.
> Effectively this would give everyone a generic way to attach some
> memory area to an inode. I know it's more complex than this because
> there are LSM hooks that run from security_inode_alloc() but if you can
> make it work generically, I'm sure everyone will benefit.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/86C65B85-8167-4D04-BFF5-40FD4F3407A4@fb.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists