netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v9 04/10] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:27:20 -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 v9 04/10] bpf: minimize number of allocated lsm
 slots per program

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 11:28:18AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > +void bpf_cgroup_atype_get(u32 attach_btf_id, int cgroup_atype)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void bpf_cgroup_atype_put(int cgroup_atype)
> > > +{
> > > +}
> > From the test bot report, these two empty functions may need
> > to be inlined in a .h or else the caller needs to have a CONFIG_CGROUP_BPF
> > before calling bpf_cgroup_atype_get().  The bpf-cgroup.h may be a better place
> > than bpf.h for the inlines but not sure if it is easy to be included in
> > trampoline.c or core.c.  Whatever way makes more sense.  Either .h is fine.
> 
> Yeah, I already moved them into headers after the complaints from the
> bot. Thanks for double checking!
> 
> Let's keep in bpf.h ?
ok.