[PATCH bpf-next v1 09/13] bpf: lsm: Add a helper function bpf_lsm_event_output

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:43 AM KP Singh <kpsingh at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
>
> This helper is similar to bpf_perf_event_output except that
> it does need a ctx argument which is more usable in the
> BTF based LSM programs where the context is converted to
> the signature of the attacthed BTF type.
>
> An example usage of this function would be:
>
> struct {
>          __uint(type, BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY);
>          __uint(key_size, sizeof(int));
>          __uint(value_size, sizeof(u32));
> } perf_map SEC(".maps");
>
> BPF_TRACE_1(bpf_prog1, "lsm/bprm_check_security,
>             struct linux_binprm *, bprm)
> {
>         char buf[BUF_SIZE];
>         int len;
>         u64 flags = BPF_F_CURRENT_CPU;
>
>         /* some logic that fills up buf with len data */
>         len = fill_up_buf(buf);
>         if (len < 0)
>                 return len;
>         if (len > BU)
>                 return 0;
>
>         bpf_lsm_event_output(&perf_map, flags, buf, len);

This seems to be generally useful and not LSM-specific, so maybe name
it more generically as bpf_event_output instead?

I'm also curious why we needed both bpf_perf_event_output and
bpf_perf_event_output_raw_tp, if it could be done as simply as you did
it here. What's different between those three and why your
bpf_lsm_event_output doesn't need pt_regs passed into them?

>         return 0;
> }
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
> ---
>  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       | 10 +++++++++-
>  kernel/bpf/verifier.c          |  1 +
>  security/bpf/ops.c             | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 10 +++++++++-
>  4 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>

[...]