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;
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:56:52 -0500
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Chris Mason <clm@meta.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] error-injection: Add prompt for function error injection
Message-ID: <Y4ogRH7zWLpmVXzJ@mit.edu>
References: <Y3vSQo85ofkfD/L8@zn.tnic>
 <CAADnVQLJFnu6gARdZ7ckgxeGaSv70jHBiQo+W=zDKO0-ELFGcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y3ymzAYRyH5IWEe/@zn.tnic>
 <3fa8ec60-dd96-c41f-ea46-8856bf855949@meta.com>
 <20221122132905.12a8d5ad@gandalf.local.home>
 <a53e8c6d-b0e5-72bf-1aba-07609c9cf1bf@meta.com>
 <20221130143719.07e36277d1471b83e9a1b627@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAADnVQ+KLXPhowdBZq0PvGOq5tv4ovNtNCvGBXHQBkVbz4UVkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjeq1m=9mU17WzfRQ1W6N0SgKHY-e2J35SpppWwUUBFbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221202014129.n5lmvzsy436ebo4b@macbook-pro-6.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221202014129.n5lmvzsy436ebo4b@macbook-pro-6.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:41:29PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> 
> The fault injection framework disables individual syscall with zero performance
> overhead comparing to LSM and seccomp mechanisms.
> BPF is not involved here. It's a kprobe in one spot.
> All other syscalls don't notice it.
> It's an attractive way to improve security.
> 
> A BPF prog over syscall can filter by user, cgroup, task and give fine grain
> control over security surface.
> tbh I'm not aware of folks doing "syscall disabling" through command line like
> above (I've only seen it through bpf), but it doesn't mean that somebody will
> not start complaining that their script broke, because distro disabled fault
> injection.
> 
> So should we split FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION kconfig into two ?
> And do default N for things like should_failslab() and
> default Y for syscalls?

How about calling the latter something like bpf syscall hooks, and not
using the terminology "error injection" in relation to system calls?
I think that might be less confusing.

							- Ted