[PATCH bpf-next v5 5/7] bpf: lsm: Initialize the BPF LSM hooks

Casey Schaufler casey at schaufler-ca.com
Mon Mar 23 23:39:35 UTC 2020

On 3/23/2020 3:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:58:18PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
>> That's not too terrible, I suppose. What would you be thinking for
>> the calls that do use call_int_hook()?
>> 	rc = call_int_hook(something, something_default, goodnesses);
>> or embedded in the macro:
>> 	rc = call_int_hook(something, goodnesses);
> Oh yes, good point. The hook call already knows the name, so:
> #define call_int_hook(FUNC, ...) ({                        \
>         int RC = FUNC#_default;                            \
> ...

That makes the most sense, I think. It's getting a little heavy on
hidden magic, but we do tend to have a pretty good set of eyes watching
when a new hook is proposed. I would expect the changes to call_int_hook()
and its callers should be made when default is added to LSM_HOOK, not

More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list