netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Restrict cgroup bpf hooks to the init netns

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: <CALCETrUz1701E5JS5NEqEqeGLExnxpesU44dSi2eYK4iMu=kcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:39:56 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bpf: Restrict cgroup bpf hooks to the init netns

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:31 PM, David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 1/23/17 7:09 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> +     */
>>> +    if (current->nsproxy->net_ns != &init_net)
>>> +            return -EINVAL;
>>
>> this restriction I actually don't mind, since it indeed can be
>> relaxed later, but please make it proper with net_eq()
>>
>
> I do mind. Why have different restrictions for the skb and sk filters?
>
> I have already shown that ip can alleviate the management aspects of the implementation -- just like ip netns does.

I'm not sure I followed what you meant.  If I understood right (which
is a big if) you're saying that ip vrf when run in a netns works
correctly in that netns.  I agree, but I think that it would continue
to work (even more reliably) if the hooks only executed in the netns
in which they were created.  I think that would probably be a good
improvement, and it could be done on top of my patch, but I'm not
about to write that code for 4.10.

--Andy