lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] bpf: Add a BPF helper for getting the IMA hash of an inode
    [...]

    > > + * long bpf_ima_inode_hash(struct inode *inode, void *dst, u32 size)
    > > + * Description
    > > + * Returns the stored IMA hash of the *inode* (if it's avaialable).
    > > + * If the hash is larger than *size*, then only *size*
    > > + * bytes will be copied to *dst*
    > > + * Return > + * The **hash_algo** of is returned on success,
    >
    > of => if?

    Just changed it to:

    "The **hash_algo** is returned on success"

    >
    > > + * **-EOPNOTSUP** if IMA is disabled and **-EINVAL** if
    >
    > and => or

    Done. (and the same for tools/)

    >

    [...]

    > > + .gpl_only = false,
    > > + .ret_type = RET_INTEGER,
    > > + .arg1_type = ARG_PTR_TO_BTF_ID,
    > > + .arg1_btf_id = &bpf_ima_inode_hash_btf_ids[0],
    > > + .arg2_type = ARG_PTR_TO_UNINIT_MEM,
    > > + .arg3_type = ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO,
    >
    > I know ARG_CONST_SIZE_OR_ZERO provides some flexibility and may
    > make verifier easier to verify programs. But beyond that did
    > you see any real use case user will pass a zero size buf to
    > get hash value?
    >

    I agree, in this case it makes more sense to ARG_CONST_SIZE.

    > > + .allowed = bpf_ima_inode_hash_allowed,
    > > +};

    [...]

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-21 01:16    [W:3.495 / U:0.172 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site