On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 12:15 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 6/27/22 11:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > 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. > > I would argue that such a patch series must come together with a BPF > selftest which then i) contains an in-tree usage example, ii) adds BPF > CI test coverage. Shipping with a BPF selftest at least would be the > usual expectation. +1 I would also recommend that this comes with a BPF selftest as suggested by Daniel. > > Thanks, > Daniel
