linux-kernel - Re: Potential issues (security and otherwise) with the current cgroup-bpf API

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]

Message-ID: <CALCETrUW2jEYmjSsOrPj+MAjkDGGUCw_rdxQh+5Er0r4ReGLnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:56:24 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Potential issues (security and otherwise) with the current
 cgroup-bpf API

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/16 5:25 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> net.socket_create_filter = "none": no filter
>> net.socket_create_filter = "bpf:baadf00d": bpf filter
>> net.socket_create_filter = "disallow": no sockets created period
>> net.socket_create_filter = "iptables:foobar": some iptables thingy
>> net.socket_create_filter = "nft:blahblahblah": some nft thingy
>> net.socket_create_filter = "address_family_list:1,2,3": allow AF 1, 2, and 3
>
> Such a scheme works for the socket create filter b/c it is a very simple use case. It does not work for the ingress and egress which allow generic bpf filters.

Can you elaborate on what goes wrong?  (Obviously the
"address_family_list" example makes no sense in that context.)

>
> ...
>
>>> you're ignoring use cases I described earlier.
>>> In vrf case there is only one ifindex it needs to bind to.
>>
>> I'm totally lost.  Can you explain what this has to do with the cgroup
>> hierarchy?
>
> I think the point is that a group hierarchy makes no sense for the VRF use case. What I put into iproute2 is
>
>     cgrp2/vrf/NAME
>
> where NAME is the vrf name. The filter added to it binds ipv4 and ipv6 sockets to a specific device index. cgrp2/vrf is the "default" vrf and does not have a filter. A user can certainly add another layer cgrp2/vrf/NAME/NAME2 but it provides no value since VRF in a VRF does not make sense.

I tend to agree.  I still think that the mechanism as it stands is
broken in other respects and should be fixed before it goes live.  I
have no desire to cause problems for the vrf use case.

But keep in mind that the vrf use case is, in Linus' tree, a bit
broken right now in its interactions with other users of the same
mechanism.  Suppose I create a container and want to trace all of its
created sockets.  I'll set up cgrp2/container and load my tracer as a
socket creation hook.  Then a container sets up
cgrp2/container/vrf/NAME (using delgation) and loads your vrf binding
filter.  Now the tracing stops working -- oops.

>
> ...
>
>>>> I like this last one, but IT'S NOT A POSSIBLE FUTURE EXTENSION.  You
>>>> have to do it now (or disable the feature for 4.10).  This is why I'm
>>>> bringing this whole thing up now.
>>>
>>> We don't have to touch user visible api here, so extensions are fine.
>>
>> Huh?  My example in the original email attaches a program in a
>> sub-hierarchy.  Are you saying that 4.11 could make that example stop
>> working?
>
> Are you suggesting sub-cgroups should not be allowed to override the filter of a parent cgroup?

Yes, exactly.  I think there are two sensible behaviors:

a) sub-cgroups cannot have a filter at all of the parent has a filter.
(This is the "punt" approach -- it lets different semantics be
assigned later without breaking userspace.)

b) sub-cgroups can have a filter if a parent does, too.  The semantics
are that the sub-cgroup filter runs first and all side-effects occur.
If that filter says "reject" then ancestor filters are skipped.  If
that filter says "accept", then the ancestor filter is run and its
side-effects happen as well.  (And so on, all the way up to the root.)

--Andy