lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v1 09/13] bpf: lsm: Add a helper function bpf_lsm_event_output
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:43 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@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@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(-)
>

[...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-24 07:37    [W:0.192 / U:2.480 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site