linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] lsm,selinux: Add LSM blob support for BPF objects

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: <CAHC9VhTWZ1McpFoqhsez+pm7LFSdsF77S6fx0iM9hVc3jOxS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:16:58 -0400
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>, 
	Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>, Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, 
	Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>, 
	Christian Göttsche <cgzones@...glemail.com>, 
	Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lsm,selinux: Add LSM blob support for BPF objects

On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:21 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 11:09 AM Blaise Boscaccy
> <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 2025 Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> This patch introduces LSM blob support for BPF maps, programs, and
> > >> tokens to enable LSM stacking and multiplexing of LSM modules that
> > >> govern BPF objects. Additionally, the existing BPF hooks used by
> > >> SELinux have been updated to utilize the new blob infrastructure,
> > >> removing the assumption of exclusive ownership of the security
> > >> pointer.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> v2:
> > >> - Use lsm_blob_alloc
> > >> - Remove unneded null check
> > >> - ifdef guard bpf alloc helpers
> > >> ---
> > >>  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h         |  3 ++
> > >>  security/security.c               | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >>  security/selinux/hooks.c          | 56 ++++----------------
> > >>  security/selinux/include/objsec.h | 17 ++++++
> > >>  4 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > This looks good to me, one nit/question below ...
> > >
> > >> @@ -5684,7 +5731,16 @@ int security_bpf_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > >>  int security_bpf_map_create(struct bpf_map *map, union bpf_attr *attr,
> > >>                          struct bpf_token *token, bool kernel)
> > >>  {
> > >> -    return call_int_hook(bpf_map_create, map, attr, token, kernel);
> > >> +    int rc = 0;
> > >
> > > I understand the motivation behind initializing @rc to zero, but to be
> > > honest it is redundant and will surely result in a follow on patch from
> > > someone to remove the initialization.
> > >
> > > Do you have any objection to me removing the initialization during the
> > > merge?  This would obviously apply to the other two as well.
> > >
> >
> > No objections on my end. Thanks.
>
> Okay, merged to lsm/dev-staging with plans to move it to lsm/dev once
> the merge window closes.

Now merged into lsm/dev, thanks!

-- 
paul-moore.com