netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v10 06/11] bpf: expose bpf

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: <20220623224310.nlictje6xrepmbo4@kafai-mbp>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:43:10 -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 v10 06/11] bpf: expose bpf_{g,s}etsockopt to lsm
 cgroup

On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 09:03:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> I don't see how to make it nice without introducing btf id lists
> for the hooks where these helpers are allowed. Some LSM hooks
> work on the locked sockets, some are triggering early and
> don't grab any locks, so have two lists for now:
> 
> 1. LSM hooks which trigger under socket lock - minority of the hooks,
>    but ideal case for us, we can expose existing BTF-based helpers
> 2. LSM hooks which trigger without socket lock, but they trigger
>    early in the socket creation path where it should be safe to
>    do setsockopt without any locks
> 3. The rest are prohibited. I'm thinking that this use-case might
>    be a good gateway to sleeping lsm cgroup hooks in the future.
>    We can either expose lock/unlock operations (and add tracking
>    to the verifier) or have another set of bpf_setsockopt
>    wrapper that grab the locks and might sleep.
Reviewed-by: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>