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

[KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>]

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