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
