On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 10:09 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:24:09PM +0200, KP Singh wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > index e97aeda3a86b..df9699bce372 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/trampoline.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > #include <linux/bpf_verifier.h>
> > #include <linux/bpf_lsm.h>
> > #include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/bpf_lsm.h>
> >
> > /* dummy _ops. The verifier will operate on target program's ops. */
> > const struct bpf_verifier_ops bpf_extension_verifier_ops = {
> > @@ -514,7 +515,7 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_tr
> > {
> > enum bpf_tramp_prog_type kind;
> > struct bpf_tramp_link *link_exiting;
> > - int err = 0;
> > + int err = 0, num_lsm_progs = 0;
> > int cnt = 0, i;
> >
> > kind = bpf_attach_type_to_tramp(link->link.prog);
> > @@ -545,8 +546,14 @@ static int __bpf_trampoline_link_prog(struct bpf_tramp_link *link, struct bpf_tr
> > continue;
> > /* prog already linked */
> > return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > + if (link_exiting->link.prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM)
> > + num_lsm_progs++;
>
> this looks wrong, it's never reached.. seems like we should add separate
> hlist_for_each_entry loop over trampoline's links for this check/init of
> num_lsm_progs ?
>
> jirka
Good catch, I missed this during my rebase, after
https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20220510205923.3206889-2-kuifeng@xxxxxx/
this condition is basically never reached. I will do a general loop
over to count LSM programs and toggle the hook to true (and same for
unlink).
- KP
[...]
