Messages in this thread | | | From | KP Singh <> | Date | Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:44:48 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/10] bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF based LSM |
| |
On 10-Feb 15:58, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:24:33AM -0800, KP Singh wrote: > > + > > +static const struct bpf_func_proto *get_bpf_func_proto( > > + enum bpf_func_id func_id, const struct bpf_prog *prog) > > +{ > > + switch (func_id) { > > + case BPF_FUNC_map_lookup_elem: > > + return &bpf_map_lookup_elem_proto; > > + case BPF_FUNC_get_current_pid_tgid: > > + return &bpf_get_current_pid_tgid_proto; > > + default: > > + return NULL; > > + } > > +} > > + > > +const struct bpf_verifier_ops lsm_verifier_ops = { > > + .get_func_proto = get_bpf_func_proto, > > +}; > > Why artificially limit it like this? > It will cause a lot of churn in the future. Like allowing map update and > delete, in addition to lookup, will be an obvious next step. > I think allowing tracing_func_proto() from the start is cleaner.
Sure, I will replace it to use tracing_func_proto in the next revision.
- KP
| |