[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161220044440.GB86803@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 20:44:41 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...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 07:12:48PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> struct cgroup_bpf {
> /*
> * Store two sets of bpf_prog pointers, one for programs that are
> * pinned directly to this cgroup, and one for those that are effective
> * when this cgroup is accessed.
> */
> struct bpf_prog *prog[MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE];
> struct bpf_prog *effective[MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE];
> };
>
> in struct cgroup, there's a 'struct cgroup_bpf bpf;'.
>
> This would change to something like:
>
> struct cgroup_filter_slot {
> struct bpf_prog *effective;
> struct cgroup_filter_slot *next;
> struct bpf_prog *local;
> }
>
> local is NULL unless *this* cgroup has a filter. effective points to
> the bpf_prog that's active in this cgroup or the nearest ancestor that
> has a filter. next is NULL if there are no filters higher in the
> chain or points to the next slot that has a filter. struct cgroup
> has:
>
> struct cgroup_filter_slot filters[MAX_BPF_ATTACH_TYPE];
>
> To evaluate it, you do:
>
> struct cgroup_filter_slot *slot = &cgroup->slot[the index];
>
> if (!slot->effective)
> return;
>
> do {
> evaluate(slot->effective);
> slot = slot->next;
> } while (unlikely(slot));
yes. something like this can work as a future extension
to support multiple programs for security use case.
Please propose a patch.
Again, it's not needed today and there is no rush to implement it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists