linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a kernel flag test for LSM bpf hook

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPhsuW5UuaFoSu+bOKmrbk9pAr9TsLu_mtpZqsYx-g_MNefCyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:20:22 -0700
From: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
To: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.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>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>, Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, 
	Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, 
	selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a kernel flag test for
 LSM bpf hook

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 11:11 AM Blaise Boscaccy
<bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
[...]
> >
> > We are blindly blocking all security_bpf() with kernel=true here, so
> > any lskel load in parallel with this test may fail. On the other hand,
> > existing tests only block some operations under certain conditions.
> > For example, test_cgroup1_hierarchy.c only blocks operations for
> > target_ancestor_cgid.
> >
> > Does this make sense?
> >
>
> Not quite. This is only blocking security_bpf where kernel=true and
> pid=monitored_pid.

"test_progs -j" runs multiple threads within the process, so all the
threads are within monotored_pid.

Thanks,
Song