Re: [PATCH v16 00/12] bpf: Add kfuncs for PKCS#7 signature verification

[Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi]

On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 16:49, Roberto Sassu
<roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:35 +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 21:26 +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 5 Sept 2022 at 16:34, Roberto Sassu
> > > <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > One of the desirable features in security is the ability to
> > > > restrict import
> > > > of data to a given system based on data authenticity. If data
> > > > import can be
> > > > restricted, it would be possible to enforce a system-wide policy
> > > > based on
> > > > the signing keys the system owner trusts.
> > > >
> > > > This feature is widely used in the kernel. For example, if the
> > > > restriction
> > > > is enabled, kernel modules can be plugged in only if they are
> > > > signed with a
> > > > key whose public part is in the primary or secondary keyring.
> > > >
> > > > For eBPF, it can be useful as well. For example, it might be
> > > > useful
> > > > to
> > > > authenticate data an eBPF program makes security decisions on.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > >
> > > CI is crashing with NULL deref for test_progs-no_alu32 with llvm-
> > > 16,
> > > but I don't think the problem is in this series. This is most
> > > likely
> > > unrelated to BPF, as the crash happens inside
> > > kernel/time/tick-sched.c:tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick.
> > >
> > > This was the same case in
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAP01T74steDfP6O8QOshoto3e3RnHhKtAeTbnrPBZS3YJXjvbA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
> > >
> > > So,
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/8194263557?check_suite_focus=true
> > > and
> > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/7982907380?check_suite_focus=true
> > >
> > > look similar to me, and may not be related to BPF. They only
> > > trigger
> > > during runs compiled using LLVM 16, so maybe some compiler
> > > transformation is surfacing the problem?
> >
> > Yes, I saw that too. Not sure what the cause could be.
> >
>
> Another occurrence, this time with gcc:
>
> https://github.com/robertosassu/vmtest/runs/8230071814?check_suite_focus=true
>

... and it seems like this run does not even have your patches, right?

> Roberto
>