On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 05:11:38AM +1100, James Morris wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > The cover letter subject line and the Kconfig help text refer to it as a > > BPF-based "MAC and Audit policy". It has an enforce config option that > > enables the bpf programs to deny access, providing access control. IIRC, in > > the earlier discussion threads, the BPF maintainers suggested that Smack and > > other LSMs could be entirely re-implemented via it in the future, and that > > such an implementation would be more optimal. > > In this case, the eBPF code is similar to a kernel module, rather than a > loadable policy file. It's a loadable mechanism, rather than a policy, in > my view. > > This would be similar to the difference between iptables rules and > loadable eBPF networking code. I'd be interested to know how the > eBPF networking scenarios are handled wrt kernel ABI. I already know of some people who pre-compile ebpf programs based on a number of "supported" kernel versions and then load the needed one at runtime. Messy, yes, but you are right, ebpf code is much more similiar to a kernel module than userspace code at the moment. thanks, greg k-h
