netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm slots per program

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]

Date:   Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:57:18 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 04/11] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm
 slots per program

On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 03:46:32PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/core.c b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > index 091ee210842f..224bb4d4fe4e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/core.c
> > > @@ -107,6 +107,9 @@ struct bpf_prog *bpf_prog_alloc_no_stats(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_extra_flag
> > >       fp->aux->prog = fp;
> > >       fp->jit_requested = ebpf_jit_enabled();
> > >       fp->blinding_requested = bpf_jit_blinding_enabled(fp);
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_LSM
> > I don't think this is needed.
> 
> enum cgroup_bpf_attach_type is under '#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF', so it
> fails in some configs without cgroup/bpf. I was trying to move that
> enumo out of ifdef but then decided that it's easier to fix here.
> Should I instead try to move ifdef in bpf-cgroup-defs.h around?
Having ifdef here is ok.  Should CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF be checked ?