[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [kpsingh:static_calls] [security] 9e15595ed0: Kernel_panic-not_syncing:lsm_static_call_init-Ran_
From:       KP Singh <kpsingh () kernel ! org>
Date:       2024-04-15 15:47:43
Message-ID: A9568514-FCB3-4715-9794-696383B2B7E8 () kernel ! org
[Download RAW message or body]



> On 15 Apr 2024, at 17:34, KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:23, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 9:21 AM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@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


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]