netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] Introduce pinnable 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:   Thu, 05 Mar 2020 12:05:23 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/3] Introduce pinnable bpf_link kernel abstraction

Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:

> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 17:07:08 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> > Maybe also the thief should not have CAP_ADMIN in the first place?
>> > And ask a daemon to perform its actions..  
>> 
>> a daemon idea keeps coming back in circles.
>> With FD-based kprobe/uprobe/tracepoint/fexit/fentry that problem is gone,
>> but xdp, tc, cgroup still don't have the owner concept.
>> Some people argued that these three need three separate daemons.
>> Especially since cgroups are mainly managed by systemd plus container
>> manager it's quite different from networking (xdp, tc) where something
>> like 'networkd' might makes sense.
>> But if you take this line of thought all the ways systemd should be that
>> single daemon to coordinate attaching to xdp, tc, cgroup because
>> in many cases cgroup and tc progs have to coordinate the work.
>
> The feature creep could happen, but Toke's proposal has a fairly simple
> feature set, which should be easy to cover by a stand alone daemon.
>
> Toke, I saw that in the library discussion there was no mention of 
> a daemon, what makes a daemon solution unsuitable?

Quoting from the last discussion[0]:

> - Introducing a new, separate code base that we'll have to write, support
>   and manage updates to.
> 
> - Add a new dependency to using XDP (now you not only need the kernel
>   and libraries, you'll also need the daemon).
> 
> - Have to duplicate or wrap functionality currently found in the kernel;
>   at least:
>   
>     - Keeping track of which XDP programs are loaded and attached to
>       each interface (as well as the "new state" of their attachment
>       order).
> 
>     - Some kind of interface with the verifier; if an app does
>       xdpd_rpc_load(prog), how is the verifier result going to get back
>       to the caller?
> 
> - Have to deal with state synchronisation issues (how does xdpd handle
>   kernel state changing from underneath it?).
> 
> While these are issues that are (probably) all solvable, I think the
> cost of solving them is far higher than putting the support into the
> kernel. Which is why I think kernel support is the best solution :)

The context was slightly different, since this was before we had
freplace support in the kernel. But apart from the point about the
verifier, I think the arguments still stand. In fact, now that we have
that, we don't even need userspace linking, so basically a daemon's only
task would be to arbitrate access to the XDP hook? In my book,
arbitrating access to resources is what the kernel is all about...

-Toke

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/m/874l07fu61.fsf@toke.dk