netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next v3 2/9] tools: bpftool: add probes for /proc/ eBPF parameters

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:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 14:22:56 +0000
From:   Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
To:     Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, oss-drivers@...ronome.com,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next v3 2/9] tools: bpftool: add probes for /proc/ eBPF
 parameters

2019-01-03 22:32 UTC-0800 ~ Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:26 AM Quentin Monnet
> <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add a set of probes to dump the eBPF-related parameters available from
>> /proc/: availability of bpf() syscall for unprivileged users,
>> JIT compiler status and hardening status, kallsyms exports status.
>>
>> Sample output:
>>
>>     # bpftool feature probe kernel
>>     Scanning system configuration...
>>     bpf() syscall for unprivileged users is enabled
>>     JIT compiler is disabled
>>     JIT compiler hardening is disabled
>>     JIT compiler kallsyms exports are disabled
>>     ...
>>
>>     # bpftool --json --pretty feature probe kernel
>>     {
>>         "system_config": {
>>             "unprivileged_bpf_disabled": 0,
>>             "bpf_jit_enable": 0,
>>             "bpf_jit_harden": 0,
>>             "bpf_jit_kallsyms": 0
> 
> We have bpf_jit_limit as well to prevent excessive memory for
> unprivileged users.
> Do we want to add it here?

Yes, thanks!