netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add eBPF hooks for cgroups

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: <20160822172040.GA22876@ircssh.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:20:42 -0700
From:   Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
To:     Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
Cc:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, htejun@...com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
        kafai@...com, fw@...len.de, harald@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add eBPF hooks for cgroups

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 06:22:20PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 06:06 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 07:07:39PM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote:
> 
> >> You brought up multiple tables which reflect the cumulative approach.
> >> This sometimes works but has its issues as well. Users must be aware
> >> of each other and anticipate what rules other users might inject
> >> before or after their own tables. The very existence of firewalld which
> >> aims at democratizing this collaboration proves this point.
> > 
> > Firewalld, was really required in the iptables predefined tables
> > model, in nft last time we talked about this during NFWS'15, future
> > plans for firewalld were not clear yet.
> > 
> > Moreover, in nft, different users can indeed dump the ruleset and it
> > would be possible to validate if one policy is being shadowed by
> > another coming later on. The bpf bytecode dump cannot be taken to the
> > original representation.
> 
> But as Thomas said - both things address different use-cases. For
> container setups, there is no administrator involved to use cli tools,
> so I don't think that's really much of an argument.
> 
> >> So in that sense I would very much like for both models to be made
> >> available to users. nftables+cgroups for a cumulative approach as
> >> well as BPF+cgroups for the delegation approach.  I don't see why the
> >> cgroups based filtering capability should not be made available to both.
> > 
> > This patchset also needs an extra egress hook, not yet known where to
> > be placed, so two hooks in the network stacks in the end, 
> 
> That should be solvable, I'm sure. I can as well leave egress out for
> the next version so it can be added later on.
> 
Any idea where you might put that yet? Does dev_xmit seems like a reasonable 
place?

> > and this only works for cgroups version 2.
> 
> I don't see a problem with that, as v1 and v2 hierarchies can peacefully
> coexist.
> 
If someone uses the netprio, or the net classid controllers, skcd matches
no longer work. Ideally, we should fix up these controllers to make them
more v2 friendly.

> > Last time we talked about this, main concerns were that this was too
> > specific, but this approach seems even more specific to me.
> 
> Hmm, I disagree - bpf programs that are associated with cgroups are
> rather something that can be extended a lot in the future, for instance
> for handling port binding permissions etc. Unlike the proposed network
> cgroup controller with all sorts of complicated knobs to control ranges
> of ports etc, a bpf program that take care of that in a much more
> versatile way.
> 
> I also strongly believe we can have both, a cgroup controller that has
> bpf programs for socket filtering and other things, _and_ a "post socket
> lookup netfilter" table type. Both will have their individual use-cases.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
>