On 2024-11-24 15:45:04-0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 2:19 AM Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The hooks got renamed, adapt the BTF IDs.
> > Fixes the following build warning:
> >
> > BTFIDS vmlinux
> > WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol bpf_lsm_task_getsecid_obj
> > WARN: resolve_btfids: unresolved symbol bpf_lsm_current_getsecid_subj
> >
> > Fixes: 37f670aacd48 ("lsm: use lsm_prop in security_current_getsecid")
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > index 3bc61628ab251e05d7837eb27dabc3b62bcc4783..5be76572ab2e8a0c6e18a81f9e4c14812a11aad2 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > @@ -375,8 +375,8 @@ BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_socket_socketpair)
> >
> > BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_syslog)
> > BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_alloc)
> > -BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_current_getsecid_subj)
> > -BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_getsecid_obj)
> > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_current_getlsmprop_subj)
> > +BTF_ID(func, bpf_lsm_task_getlsmprop_obj)
>
> Maybe we can remove these two instead?
> I couldn't come up with a reason for bpf_lsm to attach to these two.
Personally I have no idea about bps_lsm, how it works or how it is used.
I only tried to get rid of the warning.
If you prefer I can drop the IDs.
In my opinion this is a discussion that would have been better in
the original patch, if the CI would have caught it.
Thomas
