linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add is_kernel parameter to LSM/bpf test programs

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: <CAADnVQJL77xLR+E18re88XwX0kSfkx_5O3=f8YQ1rVdVkf8-hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 09:08:30 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>, 
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, 
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, 
	Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, 
	Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, 
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>, Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, 
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add is_kernel parameter to
 LSM/bpf test programs

On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 8:12 AM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:32 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 6:14 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:26 PM Blaise Boscaccy
> > > <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:31 PM Blaise Boscaccy
> > > > > <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Do we need this in the LSM tree before the upcoming merge window?
> > If not, we would prefer to carry it in bpf-next.
>
> As long as we can send this up to Linus during the upcoming merge
> window I'll be happy; if you feel strongly and want to take it via the
> BPF tree, that's fine by me.  I'm currently helping someone draft a
> patchset to implement the LSM/SELinux access control LSM callbacks for
> the BPF tokens and I'm also working on a fix for the LSM framework
> initialization code, both efforts may land in a development tree
> during the next dev cycle and may cause a merge conflict with Blaise's
> changes.  Not that a merge conflict is a terrible thing that we can't
> work around, but if we can avoid it I'd be much happier :)
>
> Please do make the /is_kernel/kernel/ change I mentioned in patch 1/2,
> and feel free to keep my ACK from this patchset revision.

My preference is to go via bpf-next, since changes are bigger
on bpf side than on lsm side.

Re: selftest.

Why change them at all if 'bool kernel' attribute is unused ?
Addition of the attr should be backward compatible change,
so all tests should still pass as-is.

You probably should add a new test where 'kernel' arg is actually
used for something. That would be patch 2.