linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 23/27] bpf: Restrict kernel image access functions when the kernel is locked down

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 26 Mar 2019 01:00:29 +0100
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>
Cc:     jmorris@...ei.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/27] bpf: Restrict kernel image access functions when
 the kernel is locked down

On 03/26/2019 12:42 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:09:50 -0700
> Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
>>
>> There are some bpf functions can be used to read kernel memory:
>> bpf_probe_read, bpf_probe_write_user and bpf_trace_printk.  These allow
>> private keys in kernel memory (e.g. the hibernation image signing key) to
>> be read by an eBPF program and kernel memory to be altered without
>> restriction.

I'm not sure where 'kernel memory to be altered without restriction' comes
from, but it's definitely a wrong statement.

>> Completely prohibit the use of BPF when the kernel is locked down.

In which scenarios will the lock-down mode be used? Mostly niche? I'm asking
as this would otherwise break a lot of existing stuff ... I'd prefer you find
a better solution to this than this straight -EPERM rejection.

>> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
>> cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> cc: Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>
>> cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
>> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <matthewgarrett@...gle.com>
> 
> Wouldn't this mean that Seccomp won't work in locked down mode?
>