On 23-Mär 18:13, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 3/23/2020 9:44 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The bpf_lsm_ nops are initialized into the LSM framework like any other
> > LSM. Some LSM hooks do not have 0 as their default return value. The
> > __weak symbol for these hooks is overridden by a corresponding
> > definition in security/bpf/hooks.c
> >
> > + return 0;
[...]
> > +}
> > +
> > +DEFINE_LSM(bpf) = {
> > + .name = "bpf",
> > + .init = bpf_lsm_init,
>
> Have you given up on the "BPF must be last" requirement?
Yes, we dropped it for as the BPF programs require CAP_SYS_ADMIN
anwyays so the position ~shouldn't~ matter. (based on some of the
discussions we had on the BPF_MODIFY_RETURN patches).
However, This can be added later (in a separate patch) if really
deemed necessary.
- KP
>
> > +};
