linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: Introduce BPF namespace

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: <CALOAHbCqCb3xmSpNe1Qvm75GBY4ZEGrAOHfVJvpZV5t=akTTgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 11:47:31 +0800
From:   Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andrii@...nel.org,
        kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
        john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com,
        haoluo@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: Introduce BPF namespace

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 3:04 AM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 2:22 AM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Currently only CAP_SYS_ADMIN can iterate BPF object IDs and convert IDs
> > to FDs, that's intended for BPF's security model[1]. Not only does it
> > prevent non-privilidged users from getting other users' bpf program, but
> > also it prevents the user from iterating his own bpf objects.
> >
> > In container environment, some users want to run bpf programs in their
> > containers. These users can run their bpf programs under CAP_BPF and
> > some other specific CAPs, but they can't inspect their bpf programs in a
> > generic way. For example, the bpftool can't be used as it requires
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN. That is very inconvenient.
>
> Agreed that it is important to enable tools like bpftool without
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN. However, I am not sure whether we need a new
> namespace for this. Can we reuse some existing namespace for this?
>

It seems we can't.

> If we do need a new namespace, maybe we should share some effort
> with tracer namespace proposal [1]?
>

Thanks for your information. I will learn the tracer namespace first
and try to analyze how to cooperate with it.

> Thanks,
> Song
>
> [1] https://lpc.events/event/16/contributions/1237/


-- 
Regards
Yafang