On 25-Mär 12:28, Kees Cook wrote:

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:26:24PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:

quoted

From: KP Singh <redacted>

When CONFIG_BPF_LSM is enabled, nop functions, bpf_lsm_<hook_name>, are
generated for each LSM hook. These functions are initialized as LSM
hooks in a subsequent patch.

Signed-off-by: KP Singh <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Florent Revest <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <redacted>
---
 include/linux/bpf_lsm.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c    | 14 ++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 include/linux/bpf_lsm.h

diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..83b96895829f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2020 Google LLC.
+ */
+
+#ifndef _LINUX_BPF_LSM_H
+#define _LINUX_BPF_LSM_H
+
+#include <linux/bpf.h>
+#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_LSM
+
+#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) \
+	RET bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__);
+#include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
+#undef LSM_HOOK
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_LSM */
+
+#endif /* _LINUX_BPF_LSM_H */

diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
index 82875039ca90..1210a819ca52 100644
--- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
+++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c

@@ -7,6 +7,20 @@
 #include <linux/filter.h>
 #include <linux/bpf.h>
 #include <linux/btf.h>
+#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
+#include <linux/bpf_lsm.h>
+
+/* For every LSM hook that allows attachment of BPF programs, declare a nop
+ * function where a BPF program can be attached.
+ */
+#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) 	\
+noinline __weak RET bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__)	\

I don't think the __weak is needed any more here?

This was suggested in:

 https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200221022537.wbmhdfkdbfvw2pww@ast-mbp/ (local)

"I think I saw cases when gcc ignored 'noinline' when function is
defined in the same file and still performed inlining while keeping
the function body.  To be safe I think __weak is necessary. That will
guarantee noinline."

It happened to work nicely with the previous approach for the special
hooks but the actual reason for adding the __weak was to guarrantee
that these functions don't get inlined.

quoted

+{						\
+	return DEFAULT;				\

I'm impressed that LSM_RET_VOID actually works. :)

All the credit goes to Andrii :)

- KP

-Kees

quoted

+}
+
+#include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
+#undef LSM_HOOK
 
 const struct bpf_prog_ops lsm_prog_ops = {
 };
-- 
2.20.1

-- 
Kees Cook