Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Dec 2022 10:56:52 -0500 | From | "Theodore Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] error-injection: Add prompt for function error injection |
| |
On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:41:29PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > The fault injection framework disables individual syscall with zero performance > overhead comparing to LSM and seccomp mechanisms. > BPF is not involved here. It's a kprobe in one spot. > All other syscalls don't notice it. > It's an attractive way to improve security. > > A BPF prog over syscall can filter by user, cgroup, task and give fine grain > control over security surface. > tbh I'm not aware of folks doing "syscall disabling" through command line like > above (I've only seen it through bpf), but it doesn't mean that somebody will > not start complaining that their script broke, because distro disabled fault > injection. > > So should we split FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION kconfig into two ? > And do default N for things like should_failslab() and > default Y for syscalls?
How about calling the latter something like bpf syscall hooks, and not using the terminology "error injection" in relation to system calls? I think that might be less confusing.
- Ted
| |