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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20231208-pocken-flugverbindung-0e4b956cd089@brauner> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 22:49:52 +0100 From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org, kernel-team@...a.com, sargun@...gun.me Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/8] bpf: fail BPF_TOKEN_CREATE if no delegation option was set on BPF FS On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:54:36AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > It's quite confusing in practice when it's possible to successfully > create a BPF token from BPF FS that didn't have any of delegate_xxx > mount options set up. While it's not wrong, it's actually more > meaningful to reject BPF_TOKEN_CREATE with specific error code (-ENOENT) > to let user-space know that no token delegation is setup up. > > So, instead of creating empty BPF token that will be always ignored > because it doesn't have any of the allow_xxx bits set, reject it with > -ENOENT. If we ever need empty BPF token to be possible, we can support > that with extra flag passed into BPF_TOKEN_CREATE. > > Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> > --- Might consider EOPNOTSUPP (or whatever the correct way of spelling this is). Otherwise, Acked-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists