nders Roxell
>> ; Alexei Starovoitov ; Daniel
>> Borkmann ; LKML ;
>> Network Development ; bpf
>>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: fix the default value of secid_to_secctx hook
> I would *really* appreciate it if discussions about the LSM infrastructure
> where
;
> Network Development ; bpf
>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] security: fix the default value of secid_to_secctx hook
I would *really* appreciate it if discussions about the LSM infrastructure
where done on the linux-security-module mail list. (added to CC).
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2020
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:29 AM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:43 PM James Morris
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 May 2020, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >
> > > > James,
> > > >
> > > > since you to
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:47 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:43 PM James Morris
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 May 2020, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > > James,
> > >
> > > since you took the previous similar patch are you going to pick this
> > > one up as well?
> >
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:43 PM James Morris
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2020, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > James,
> >
> > since you took the previous similar patch are you going to pick this
> > one up as well?
> > Or we can route it via bpf tree to Linus asap.
>
> Routing via your tree is fine
On Wed, 13 May 2020, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> James,
>
> since you took the previous similar patch are you going to pick this
> one up as well?
> Or we can route it via bpf tree to Linus asap.
Routing via your tree is fine.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Anders Roxell
>
On Tue, 12 May 2020, Anders Roxell wrote:
> security_secid_to_secctx is called by the bpf_lsm hook and a successful
> return value (i.e 0) implies that the parameter will be consumed by the
> LSM framework. The current behaviour return success when the pointer
> isn't initialized when CONFIG_BPF_L
James,
since you took the previous similar patch are you going to pick this
one up as well?
Or we can route it via bpf tree to Linus asap.
Thanks
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Anders Roxell wrote:
>
> security_secid_to_secctx is called by the bpf_lsm hook and a successful
> return value (i.e
security_secid_to_secctx is called by the bpf_lsm hook and a successful
return value (i.e 0) implies that the parameter will be consumed by the
LSM framework. The current behaviour return success when the pointer
isn't initialized when CONFIG_BPF_LSM is enabled, with the default
return from kernel/
