netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 08:08:30 +0800
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:17:47PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> >> +static struct miscdevice bpf_dev = {
> >> +	.minor		= MISC_DYNAMIC_MINOR,
> >> +	.name		= "bpf",
> >> +	.fops		= &bpf_chardev_ops,
> >> +	.mode		= 0440,
> >> +	.nodename	= "bpf",
> > 
> > Here's what kvm does:
> > 
> > static struct miscdevice kvm_dev = {
> >        KVM_MINOR,
> >        "kvm",
> >        &kvm_chardev_ops,
> > };

Ick, I thought we converted all of these to named initializers a long
time ago :)

> > Is there an actual reason that mode is not 0 by default in bpf case? Why
> > we need to define nodename?
> 
> Based on my understanding, mode of 0440 is what we want. If we leave it 
> as 0, it will use default value of 0600. I guess we can just set it to 
> 0440, as user space can change it later anyway. 

Don't rely on userspace changing it, set it to what you want the
permissions to be in the kernel here, otherwise you have to create a new
udev rule and get it merged into all of the distros.  Just do it right
the first time and there is no need for it.

What is wrong with 0600 for this?  Why 0440?

thanks,

greg k-h