netdev - Re: Permissions for eBPF objects

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: <CABXk95BkyU5MBLry0PEp+QwhtY7rM4DCmQq3CeQi6=TQtQQPwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:45:41 -0700
From:   Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>
To:     Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Cc:     Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        SELinux <Selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: Permissions for eBPF objects

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:01 -0700, Jeffrey Vander Stoep via Selinux
> wrote:
>> I’d like to get your thoughts on adding LSM permission checks on BPF
>> objects.
>>
>> By default, the ability to create and use eBPF maps/programs requires
>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN [1]. Alternatively, all processes can be granted access
>> to bpf() functions. This seems like poor granularity. [2]
>>
>> Like files and sockets, eBPF maps and programs can be passed between
>> processes by FD and have a number of functions that map cleanly to
>> permissions.
>>
>> Let me know what you think. Are there simpler alternative approaches
>> that we haven’t considered?
>
> Is it possible to create the map/program in one process (with
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN), pass the resulting fd to netd, and then use it there
> (without requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN in netd itself)?

That might work. Any use of bpf() requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN but netd
could potentially just apply the prog_fd to a socket:

           setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ATTACH_BPF,
                      &prog_fd, sizeof(prog_fd));

>
> What level of granularity would be useful?  Would it go beyond just
> being able to use bpf() at all?

"use" might be sufficient. At least initially.

I could see some others coming in handy. For example, a simple mapping
of functionality to permissions gives:
map_create, map_update, map_delete, map_read, prog_load, prog_use.

Of course there's no sense in breaking "use" into multiple permissions if
we expect the entire set to always be granted together.

>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Jeff
>>
>> [1] http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/bpf.2.html NOTES section
>> [2] We are considering eBPF for network filtering by netd. Giving
>> netd
>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN would considerably increase netd’s privileges.
>> Alternatively allowing all processes permission to use bpf() goes
>> against the principle of least privilege exposing a lot of kernel
>> attack surface to processes that do not actually need it.
>>