Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:11:55 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] Introduce security_create_user_ns() | From | Frederick Lawler <> |
| |
On 6/27/22 5:15 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 6/27/22 11:56 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:11 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>> This is one of the reasons why I usually like to see at least one LSM >>>> implementation to go along with every new/modified hook. The >>>> implementation forces you to think about what information is necessary >>>> to perform a basic access control decision; sometimes it isn't always >>>> obvious until you have to write the access control :) >>> >>> I spoke to Frederick at length during LSS and as I've been given to >>> understand there's a eBPF program that would immediately use this new >>> hook. Now I don't want to get into the whole "Is the eBPF LSM hook >>> infrastructure an LSM" but I think we can let this count as a legitimate >>> first user of this hook/code. >> >> Yes, for the most part I don't really worry about the "is a BPF LSM a >> LSM?" question, it's generally not important for most discussions. >> However, there is an issue unique to the BPF LSMs which I think is >> relevant here: there is no hook implementation code living under >> security/. While I talked about a hook implementation being helpful >> to verify the hook prototype, it is also helpful in providing an >> in-tree example for other LSMs; unfortunately we don't get that same >> example value when the initial hook implementation is a BPF LSM. > > I would argue that such a patch series must come together with a BPF > selftest which then i) contains an in-tree usage example, ii) adds BPF > CI test coverage. Shipping with a BPF selftest at least would be the > usual expectation.
Sounds good. I'll add both a eBPF selftest and SELinux implementation for v2.
> > Thanks, > Daniel
| |