On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 11:11 AM Frederick Lawler <fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/27/22 5:15 PM, Daniel Borkmann 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. > > Sounds good. I'll add both a eBPF selftest and SELinux implementation > for v2. Thanks Daniel! -- paul-moore.com
