netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf

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:   Sat, 17 Aug 2019 17:42:08 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf

On August 17, 2019 5:36:54 PM GMT+02:00, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 05:16:53PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> On August 17, 2019 5:08:45 PM GMT+02:00, Alexei Starovoitov
><alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 12:22:53AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> (The one usecase I'd care about is to extend seccomp to do
>> >pointer-based
>> >> syscall filtering. Whether or not that'd require (unprivileged)
>ebpf
>> >is
>> >> up for discussion at KSummit.)
>> >
>> >Kees have been always against using ebpf in seccomp. I believe he
>still
>> >holds this opinion. Until he changes his mind let's stop bringing
>> >seccomp
>> >as a use case for unpriv bpf.
>> 
>> That's why I said "whether or not".
>> For the record, I do prefer a non-unpriv-ebpf way.
>> It's still something that will most surely come up in the discussion
>though.
>
>It's very un-kernely way to defer to in-person meetings.
>If there is anything to discuss please discuss it on the public mailing
>list.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2019-July/006699.html