From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF496C7618F for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA37320659 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="EzQNWrBC" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388536AbfGPUcp (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 16:32:45 -0400 Received: from mail-vs1-f68.google.com ([209.85.217.68]:40578 "EHLO mail-vs1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728469AbfGPUcp (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 16:32:45 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f68.google.com with SMTP id a186so13235249vsd.7 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:32:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=81NxWyaYYLOx3U0CNAY+vem2FwAQtGrb2n7o/OCCQ6Q=; b=EzQNWrBC5qDZZtG/w0lKikRR/oNojiw9cBTeaFyF+wRtC0dUeoMDAVmJAyqgyBzSEe NnHR+bKb6u1SnmKae3PIH+umXwHZMHtFajbm/8e/0FKjLrjds+MrgdBNWGVgxTk/yr6r a85dbUuIp7o5N3v/8tNZHHWO3WTJG2qgU7hh2JmzThDmC4LWVEqOIQxnLnkYtDSCe2ti 5FQhqEyqvKKdQWNiHM1ecC46U6rAWhmCVAaC9TfrC8eScLAfgKAcSwq1bSAoiEmgzGkY v9jXDgZ1Ero5tUf69xUGxmjRwnF44LzOVHGe3Veh7QYw4fFvqvGOrUYAfq8zFdebhPQT bgcw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=81NxWyaYYLOx3U0CNAY+vem2FwAQtGrb2n7o/OCCQ6Q=; b=HFFC81/w67YxIzOa88h9PO6MwP5qX07J9HSGIn+oghQOZdbb5PtWEp0+z0rxk2rYnN v8gJE2xIBlszZcMY5vzLOy5fu71Fzrsw9RF2t+y6SmVl61oCstc5v6H0ntjolTwE7g7E oDj6xLd+D/ZlaKmhpyC/evRPak6DtJ2cBnM8hhfO5BgHdUmhtDO2kuZO9GHOdDuZEPRi QxT1MyNTxS+s00IwUZrABRTqOoB0mutMWUu40w6Z4G3ya5us+PLHcN+qadhcB8Z1RdYC 7XasK7pjuqmD15+AC3fh19swpOpRxWzS52NQlbZUlxPRGAGSkBjPXaVxnTly1q0AECuU xuUw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVS6WBysivwUJmdSTgZQ0rlk+OwiSIHXdN9FL8js4VdRaj/0C+5 JE55cTOtH2nSPZuRKg1YazJNIDaEAiqkBDk2l4KBq8HC4RU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxQj6V0JsV1Wq1M4PK/ZqnLQAggZqvxwAWQtvoVxjTqMsgvXgRRn/MxQo0FX6SkSFdhHPKRHE9oRdeF58llyro= X-Received: by 2002:a67:fb02:: with SMTP id d2mr12106614vsr.207.1563309164025; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:32:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190715195946.223443-1-matthewgarrett@google.com> <20190715195946.223443-24-matthewgarrett@google.com> <5d363f09-d649-5693-45c0-bb99d69f0f38@iogearbox.net> In-Reply-To: <5d363f09-d649-5693-45c0-bb99d69f0f38@iogearbox.net> From: Matthew Garrett Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 13:32:33 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V35 23/29] bpf: Restrict bpf when kernel lockdown is in confidentiality mode To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: James Morris , LSM List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux API , David Howells , Alexei Starovoitov , Network Development , Chun-Yi Lee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 3:54 PM Daniel Borkmann wrote: > Hmm, does security_locked_down() ever return a code > 0 or why do you > have the double check on return code? If not, then for clarity the > ret code from security_locked_down() should be checked as 'ret < 0' > as well and out label should be at the memset directly instead. It doesn't, so I'll update. Thanks!