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]

Date:   Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:15:47 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Chenbo Feng <fengc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        SELinux <Selinux@...ho.nsa.gov>,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Subject: Re: Permissions for eBPF objects

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:47:19PM -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:07:27PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >> On 08/25/2017 09:52 PM, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> > > 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.
> >
> > before reinventing the wheel please take a look at landlock work.
> > Everything that was discussed in this thread is covered by it.
> > The patches have been in development for more than a year and most of the early
> > issues have been resolved.
> > It will be presented again during security summit in LA in September.
> >
> I am not very familiar with landlock lsm, isn't this module also
> depend on the lsm hooks to do
> the landlock check? If so then adding lsm hooks for eBPF object seems
> not conflict with the
> work on progress.

I see. I got it the other way around. What lsm checks are you proposing?
and why unprivileged_bpf_disabled is not enough?
you want to allow unpriv only for specific user(s) ?