On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 02:23:02PM -0500, Kenny Ho wrote: > Adding a few more emails from get_maintainer.pl and bumping this > thread since there hasn't been any comments so far. Is this too > crazy? Am I missing something fundamental? sorry for delay. Missed it earlier. Feel free to ping the mailing list sooner next time. > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:24 AM Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is a skeleton implementation to invite comments and generate > > discussion around the idea of introducing a bpf-cgroup program type to > > control ioctl access. This is modelled after > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_DEVICE. The premise is to allow system admins to > > write bpf programs to block some ioctl access, potentially in conjunction > > with data collected by other bpf programs stored in some bpf maps and > > with bpf_spin_lock. > > > > For example, a bpf program has been accumulating resource usaging > > statistic and a second bpf program of BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_IOCTL would > > block access to previously mentioned resource via ioctl when the stats > > stored in a bpf map reaches certain threshold. > > > > Like BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_DEVICE, the default is permissive (i.e., > > ioctls are not blocked if no bpf program is present for the cgroup.) to > > maintain current interface behaviour when this functionality is unused. > > > > Performance impact to ioctl calls is minimal as bpf's in-kernel verifier > > ensure attached bpf programs cannot crash and always terminate quickly. > > > > TODOs: > > - correct usage of the verifier > > - toolings > > - samples > > - device driver may provide helper functions that take > > bpf_cgroup_ioctl_ctx and return something more useful for specific > > device > > > > Signed-off-by: Kenny Ho <Kenny.Ho@xxxxxxx> ... > > @@ -45,6 +46,10 @@ long vfs_ioctl(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) > > if (!filp->f_op->unlocked_ioctl) > > goto out; > > > > + error = BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_IOCTL(filp, cmd, arg); > > + if (error) > > + goto out; > > + That's a bit problematic, since we have bpf_lsm now. Could you use security_file_ioctl hook and do the same filtering there? It's not cgroup based though. Is it a concern? If cgroup scoping is really necessary then it's probably better to add it to bpf_lsm. Then all hooks will become cgroup aware. _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
