netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/2] unprivileged BPF_PROG_TEST

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <69266F42-6D0B-4F0B-805C-414880AC253D@juniper.net>
Date:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:50:42 +0000
From:   Edwin Peer <epeer@...iper.net>
To:     Y Song <ys114321@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ast@...nel.org" <ast@...nel.org>,
        "daniel@...earbox.net" <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/2] unprivileged BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN

On 12/18/19, 23:19, "Y Song" <ys114321@...il.com> wrote:

>  Added cc to bpf@...r.kernel.org.

Thank you, I will remember to do this next time.

> Have you tried your patch with some bpf programs? verifier and jit  put some
> restrictions on unpriv programs. To truely test the program, most if not all these
> restrictions should be lifted, so the same tested program should be able to
> run on production server and vice verse.

Agreed, I am aware of some of these differences in the load/verifier behavior with and without
CAP_SYS_ADMIN. In particular, without CAP_SYS_ADMIN programs are still restricted to 4k, some helpers are not available (spin locks, trace printk) and there are some differences in context access checks.

I think these can be addressed incrementally, assuming folk are on board with this approach in general?

Regards,
Edwin Peer