Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/20] Add return value range check for BPF LSM

Paul Moore
2024-07-12T15:56:37Z

On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 7:13 AM Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>
> From: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@huawei.com>
>
> LSM BPF prog returning a positive number attached to the hook
> file_alloc_security makes kernel panic.

...

> Xu Kuohai (20):
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook vm_enough_memory
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_need_killpriv
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_getsecurity
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_listsecurity
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook inode_copy_up_xattr
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook getselfattr
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook setprocattr
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook getprocattr
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook key_getsecurity
> lsm: Refactor return value of LSM hook audit_rule_match
> bpf, lsm: Add disabled BPF LSM hook list
> bpf, lsm: Enable BPF LSM prog to read/write return value parameters
> bpf, lsm: Add check for BPF LSM return value
> bpf: Prevent tail call between progs attached to different hooks
> bpf: Fix compare error in function retval_range_within
> bpf: Add a special case for bitwise AND on range [-1, 0]
> selftests/bpf: Avoid load failure for token_lsm.c
> selftests/bpf: Add return value checks for failed tests
> selftests/bpf: Add test for lsm tail call
> selftests/bpf: Add verifier tests for bpf lsm

I'm not quite sure what happened, but it looks like patches 13/20
through 20/20 did not hit the mailing lists, see lore link below; did
you have any mail failures when sending the patchset? Regardless, can
you sort this out and resend the patchset?

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240711111908.3817636-1-xukuohai@huaweicloud.com

--
paul-moore.com