netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/9] tools: bpftool: add probes for system and device

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: <CAADnVQJJvWEYjpzEvaXnO19KcxLJjdf+vEmtRqfW-9O42Nmmfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:39:23 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Quentin Monnet <quentin.monnet@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/9] tools: bpftool: add probes for system and device

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 7:28 AM Quentin Monnet
<quentin.monnet@...ronome.com> wrote:
>
>
> If the user does not have root privileges (or more precisely, the
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability) detection will be erroneous for most
> parameters. Therefore, forbid non-root users to run the command.
>
> v5:
> - Move exported symbols to a new LIBBPF_0.0.2 section in libbpf.map
>   (patches 4 to 6).
> - Minor fixes on patches 3 and 4.

I was about to apply the set,
but while testing on older kernels bpftool crashed the box.
It's a kernel bug, no doubt, but bpftool shouldn't be doing
dangerous operations if it can potentially crash it.
I'm debugging what went wrong.
It crashed after this message:
CONFIG_XFRM is set to y
dmesg was:
[1757577.380114] BUG: unable to handle kernel
[1757577.388476] NULL pointer dereference
[1757577.395957]  at           (null)
[1757577.402752] IP:           (null)
[1757577.421265] Call Trace:
[1757577.421269]  ? SyS_bpf+0x18b/0x16b0
[1757577.421272]  ? __audit_syscall_entry+0xb5/0x100
[1757577.421277]  do_syscall_64+0x53/0x150
Not sure how that was possible.
I'm still debugging.