On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 9:37 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-15 at 21:35 -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > > If you want to somehow instrument the LSM hook definitions (what I > > believe to be the motivation behind patch 3/4) to indicate valid > > return values for use by the BPF verifier, I think we could entertain > > that, or at least discuss it further, but I'm not inclined to support > > any runtime overhead at the LSM layer for a specific LSM. > > Ok, yes. Patches 1-3 would help to keep in sync the LSM infrastructure > and eBPF, but it is not strictly needed. I could propose an eBPF-only > alternative to declare sets of functions per interval. > > More or less, I developed an eBPF-based alternative also for patch 4. > It is just a proof of concept. Will propose it, to validate the idea. Thanks, I think that might be the best approach. Also, please resubmit patches 1/4 and 2/4 with those small changes; those are nice improvements that just need a couple of small tweaks to be acceptable :) -- paul-moore.com
