[kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0: Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_out_of_static_slots
KP Singh
kpsingh at kernel.org
Mon Apr 15 15:47:43 UTC 2024
> On 15 Apr 2024, at 17:34, KP Singh <kpsingh at kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:23, Paul Moore <paul at paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 9:21 AM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel at i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> > On 2024/04/15 17:26, KP Singh wrote:
> > > This seems like an odd config which does not enable STATIC_CALL, I am going to
> > > make CONFIG_SECURITY depend on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL and make the dependency explicit.
> >
> > If CONFIG_SECURITY depends on CONFIG_STATIC_CALL, architectures which do not
> > support CONFIG_STATIC_CALL can no longer use LSM ? That sounds a bad dependency.
>
> Agreed. If the arch doesn't support static calls we need a fallback
> solution for the LSM that is no worse than what we have now, and
> preferably would still solve the issue of the BPF hooks active even
> where this is no BPF program attached.
Actually I take it back, when CONFIG_STATIC_CALL is not available, the implementation falls back to an indirect call. This crash is unrelated, I will debug further and post back.
- KP
>
> --
> paul-moore.com
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list