Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/3] ima: Implement ima_inode_hash

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 11/25/20 1:04 PM, KP Singh wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 6:35 PM Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 11/24/20 7:12 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> > > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This is in preparation to add a helper for BPF LSM programs to use
> > > IMA hashes when attached to LSM hooks. There are LSM hooks like
> > > inode_unlink which do not have a struct file * argument and cannot
> > > use the existing ima_file_hash API.
> > >
> > > An inode based API is, therefore, useful in LSM based detections like an
> > > executable trying to delete itself which rely on the inode_unlink LSM
> > > hook.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the ima_file_hash function does nothing with the struct file
> > > pointer apart from calling file_inode on it and converting it to an
> > > inode.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > There is no change for this patch compared to previous version,
> > so you can carry my Ack.
> >
> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@xxxxxx>
>
> I am guessing:
>
> *  We need an Ack from Mimi/James.

Yes.

> * As regards to which tree, I guess bpf-next would be better since the
> BPF helper and the selftest depends on it

Yep, bpf-next is my preference as otherwise we're running into unnecessary
merge conflicts.

Thanks,
Daniel