[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180409135547.GD17840@linux-l9pv.suse>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 21:55:47 +0800
From: joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Justin Forbes <jforbes@...hat.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot
On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 08:40:10PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 04:07:42PM +0800, joeyli wrote:
> >
> > > If the only thing that folks are paranoid about is reading
> > > arbitrary kernel memory with bpf_probe_read() helper
> > > then preferred patch would be to disable it during verification
> > > when in lockdown mode
> >
> > Sorry for I didn't fully understand your idea...
> > Do you mean that using bpf verifier to filter out bpf program that
> > uses bpf_probe_read()?
>
> Take a look bpf_get_trace_printk_proto().
> Similarly we can add bpf_get_probe_read_proto() that
> will return NULL if lockdown is on.
> Then programs with bpf_probe_read() will be rejected by the verifier.
>
OK, I saw check_helper_call(). Thank you for point it out.
it's good idea!
Joey Lee
Powered by blists - more mailing lists