netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 08/11] libbpf: add lsm_cgoup

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: <CAKH8qBtLBicn0y9bN3WEYAEHqYqoERzX3XtQU_nCrRh2FBmTmg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 19:15:24 -0700
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 08/11] libbpf: add lsm_cgoup_sock type

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 4:26 PM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 3:55 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > lsm_cgroup/ is the prefix for BPF_LSM_CGROUP.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > index ef7f302e542f..854449dcd072 100644
> > --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> > @@ -9027,6 +9027,7 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> >         SEC_DEF("fmod_ret.s+",          TRACING, BPF_MODIFY_RETURN, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_trace),
> >         SEC_DEF("fexit.s+",             TRACING, BPF_TRACE_FEXIT, SEC_ATTACH_BTF | SEC_SLEEPABLE, attach_trace),
> >         SEC_DEF("freplace+",            EXT, 0, SEC_ATTACH_BTF, attach_trace),
> > +       SEC_DEF("lsm_cgroup+",          LSM, BPF_LSM_CGROUP, SEC_ATTACH_BTF),
>
> we don't do simplistic prefix match anymore, so this doesn't have to
> go before lsm+ (we do prefix match only for legacy SEC_SLOPPY cases).
> So total nit (but wanted to dispel preconception that we need to avoid
> subprefix matches), I'd put this after lsm+

Sure, didn't know the ordering doesn't matter, will do, thanks!