On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:11 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: ... > > This is one of the reasons why I usually like to see at least one LSM > > implementation to go along with every new/modified hook. The > > implementation forces you to think about what information is necessary > > to perform a basic access control decision; sometimes it isn't always > > obvious until you have to write the access control :) > > I spoke to Frederick at length during LSS and as I've been given to > understand there's a eBPF program that would immediately use this new > hook. Now I don't want to get into the whole "Is the eBPF LSM hook > infrastructure an LSM" but I think we can let this count as a legitimate > first user of this hook/code. Yes, for the most part I don't really worry about the "is a BPF LSM a LSM?" question, it's generally not important for most discussions. However, there is an issue unique to the BPF LSMs which I think is relevant here: there is no hook implementation code living under security/. While I talked about a hook implementation being helpful to verify the hook prototype, it is also helpful in providing an in-tree example for other LSMs; unfortunately we don't get that same example value when the initial hook implementation is a BPF LSM. -- paul-moore.com
