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: <CAHC9VhS5Gnj98K4fBCq3hDXjmj1Zt9WWqoOiTrwH85CDSTGEYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 19:40:04 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: 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>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, 
	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>, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	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 Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 3:31 PM Blaise Boscaccy
<bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> The security_bpf LSM hook now contains a boolean parameter specifying
> whether an invocation of the bpf syscall originated from within the
> kernel. Here, we update the function signature of relevant test
> programs to include that new parameter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Blaise Boscaccy bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/rcu_read_lock.c           | 3 ++-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_cgroup1_hierarchy.c  | 4 ++--
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kfunc_dynptr_param.c | 6 +++---
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_lookup_key.c         | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_ptr_untrusted.c      | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_task_under_cgroup.c  | 2 +-
>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_verify_pkcs7_sig.c   | 2 +-
>  7 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

I see that Song requested that the changes in this patch be split out
back in the v3 revision, will that cause git bisect issues if patch
1/2 is applied but patch 2/2 is not, or is there some BPF magic that
ensures that the selftests will still run properly?

-- 
paul-moore.com