Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145340-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202404151225.ce542e38-lkp@intel.com> <757538DA-07A4-4332-BAFA-B864BFD06A76@kernel.org>
 <30876b80-c437-4916-b982-97c1a95c0747@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <30876b80-c437-4916-b982-97c1a95c0747@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:23:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhS=hQuvv+Sw6cc2HwzcLApO7Rc3dAnqHytyzBpC1rokFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0: Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_out_of_static_slots
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, 
	lkp@intel.com, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, 
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 9:21=E2=80=AFAM Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> On 2024/04/15 17:26, KP Singh wrote:
> > This seems like an odd config which does not enable STATIC_CALL, I am g=
oing to
> > make CONFIG_SECURITY depend on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL and make the dependen=
cy explicit.
>
> If CONFIG_SECURITY depends on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL, architectures which do =
not
> support CONFIG_STATIC_CALL can no longer use LSM ? That sounds a bad depe=
ndency.

Agreed.  If the arch doesn't support static calls we need a fallback
solution for the LSM that is no worse than what we have now, and
preferably would still solve the issue of the BPF hooks active even
where this is no BPF program attached.

--=20
paul-moore.com