Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145483-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.500.171.1.1\))
Subject: Re: [kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0:
 Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_out_of_static_slots
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CACYkzJ4G7hO0DNSBy4wpJG1PSgNkifuYcfOeTTpyVBtBtWvQSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 17:47:43 +0200
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
 Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
 Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
 Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>,
 kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
 lkp@intel.com,
 oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A9568514-FCB3-4715-9794-696383B2B7E8@kernel.org>
References: <202404151225.ce542e38-lkp@intel.com>
 <757538DA-07A4-4332-BAFA-B864BFD06A76@kernel.org>
 <30876b80-c437-4916-b982-97c1a95c0747@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <CAHC9VhS=hQuvv+Sw6cc2HwzcLApO7Rc3dAnqHytyzBpC1rokFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACYkzJ4G7hO0DNSBy4wpJG1PSgNkifuYcfOeTTpyVBtBtWvQSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>


> On 15 Apr 2024, at 17:34, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:23, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> 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 going to
> > > make CONFIG_SECURITY depend on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL and make the =
dependency 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 =
dependency.
>=20
> 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.

Actually I take it back, when CONFIG_STATIC_CALL is not available, the =
implementation falls back to an indirect call. This crash is unrelated, =
I will debug further and post back.

- KP

>=20
> --=20
> paul-moore.com