Thread (44 messages) 44 messages, 7 authors, 2020-02-12

Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/10] bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF based LSM

From: KP Singh <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-11 12:44:55
Also in: bpf, lkml

On 10-Feb 15:58, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:24:33AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
quoted
+
+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
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help