netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: respect CAP_IPC_LOCK in RLIMIT

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190916221954.evj7er2xk22geyst@ast-mbp>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 15:19:56 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Christian Barcenas <christian@...rcenas.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: respect CAP_IPC_LOCK in RLIMIT_MEMLOCK check

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:09:06AM -0700, Christian Barcenas wrote:
> 
> bpf() is currently the only exception to the above, ie. as far as I can tell
> it is the only code that enforces RLIMIT_MEMLOCK but does not honor
> CAP_IPC_LOCK.

Yes. bpf is not honoring CAP_IPC_LOCK comparing to other places in the kernel,
but we cannot change this anymore. User space already using rlimit as an enforcement.
bpf_rlimit.h hack we use in selftests is not a universal way of loading bpf progs.
If we make such change root user will become unlimited and rlimit enforcement
will break.