[PATCH bpf-next v6 3/8] bpf: lsm: provide attachment points for BPF LSM programs

[KP Singh]

On 25-Mär 13:07, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 08:39:56PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > On 25-Mär 12:28, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:26:24PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> > > > +noinline __weak RET bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__)	\
> > > 
> > > I don't think the __weak is needed any more here?
> > 
> > This was suggested in:
> > 
> >  https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200221022537.wbmhdfkdbfvw2pww@ast-mbp/
> > 
> > "I think I saw cases when gcc ignored 'noinline' when function is
> > defined in the same file and still performed inlining while keeping
> > the function body.  To be safe I think __weak is necessary. That will
> > guarantee noinline."
> > 
> > It happened to work nicely with the previous approach for the special
> > hooks but the actual reason for adding the __weak was to guarrantee
> > that these functions don't get inlined.
> 
> Oh, hrm. Well, okay. That rationale would imply that the "noinline"
> macro needs adjustment instead, but that can be separate, something like:
> 
> include/linux/compiler_attributes.h
> 
> -#define noinline __attribute__((__noinline__))
> +#define noinline __attribute__((__noinline__)) __attribute__((__weak__))
> 
> With a comment, etc...

Sounds reasonable, I will drop the __weak from this and send a
separate patch for this.

- KP

> 
> -Kees
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > +{						\
> > > > +	return DEFAULT;				\
> > > 
> > > I'm impressed that LSM_RET_VOID actually works. :)
> > 
> > All the credit goes to Andrii :)
> > 
> > - KP
> > 
> > > 
> > > -Kees
> > > 
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
> > > > +#undef LSM_HOOK
> > > >  
> > > >  const struct bpf_prog_ops lsm_prog_ops = {
> > > >  };
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.20.1
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Kees Cook
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook