Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221115175652.3836811-1-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
 <20221115175652.3836811-5-roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> <CAHC9VhQ+fUZfJwJ=oJ9ieszKeicnS7Z-QcJuJVL9HF5F0tcA7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <700dffccdfeeb3d19c5385550e4c84f08c705e19.camel@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <700dffccdfeeb3d19c5385550e4c84f08c705e19.camel@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Nov 2022 17:06:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRzzGt3N+AMxp93Zzq+1tWjd63hNv8AzZx4kppu2J535w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] security: Enforce limitations on return values
 from LSMs
To:     Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org,
        martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org, yhs@fb.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com,
        haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org, revest@chromium.org,
        jackmanb@chromium.org, jmorris@namei.org, serge@hallyn.com,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:37 AM Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 21:35 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > If you want to somehow instrument the LSM hook definitions (what I
> > believe to be the motivation behind patch 3/4) to indicate valid
> > return values for use by the BPF verifier, I think we could entertain
> > that, or at least discuss it further, but I'm not inclined to support
> > any runtime overhead at the LSM layer for a specific LSM.
>
> Ok, yes. Patches 1-3 would help to keep in sync the LSM infrastructure
> and eBPF, but it is not strictly needed. I could propose an eBPF-only
> alternative to declare sets of functions per interval.
>
> More or less, I developed an eBPF-based alternative also for patch 4.
> It is just a proof of concept. Will propose it, to validate the idea.

Thanks, I think that might be the best approach.  Also, please
resubmit patches 1/4 and 2/4 with those small changes; those are nice
improvements that just need a couple of small tweaks to be acceptable
:)

-- 
paul-moore.com