Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 20:43:53 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        primiano@google.com, rsavitski@google.com, jeffv@google.com,
        kernel-team@android.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@google.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] perf_event: Add support for LSM and SELinux checks
Message-ID: <20191010004353.GD96813@google.com>
References: <20191009203657.6070-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910100908260.29840@namei.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1910100908260.29840@namei.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:11:39AM +1100, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> 
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > +	err = security_perf_event_alloc(event);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		goto err_security;
> > +#endif
> 
> You should not need this ifdef.

Fixed.

> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index 1bc000f834e2..7639bca1db59 100644
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@ -2373,26 +2373,32 @@ int security_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
> >  {
> >  	return call_int_hook(bpf, 0, cmd, attr, size);
> >  }
> > +
> >  int security_bpf_map(struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode)
> >  {
> >  	return call_int_hook(bpf_map, 0, map, fmode);
> >  }
> > +
> >  int security_bpf_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >  {
> >  	return call_int_hook(bpf_prog, 0, prog);
> >  }
> > +
> >  int security_bpf_map_alloc(struct bpf_map *map)
> >  {
> >  	return call_int_hook(bpf_map_alloc_security, 0, map);
> >  }
> > +
> >  int security_bpf_prog_alloc(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> >  {
> >  	return call_int_hook(bpf_prog_alloc_security, 0, aux);
> >  }
> > +
> >  void security_bpf_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
> >  {
> >  	call_void_hook(bpf_map_free_security, map);
> >  }
> > +
> >  void security_bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> >  {
> >  	call_void_hook(bpf_prog_free_security, aux);
> > @@ -2404,3 +2410,30 @@ int security_locked_down(enum lockdown_reason what)
> >  	return call_int_hook(locked_down, 0, what);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(security_locked_down);
> 
> Please avoid unrelated whitespace changes.

The author of the BPF security hooks forgot to add a newline between function
definitions and I was just cleaning the style issue since it is very close to
the parts I touched. But I will drop it from the patch per your suggestion.

thanks,

 - Joel