netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/4] Add support for cgroup 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]

Message-ID: <20200331011753.qxo3pq6ldqm43bo7@ast-mbp>
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 18:17:53 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrey Ignatov <rdna@...com>, Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 bpf-next 0/4] Add support for cgroup bpf_link

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 06:57:44PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 3/30/20 6:32 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>
> >> This is not a large feature, and there is no reason for CREATE/UPDATE -
> >> a mere 4 patch set - to go in without something as essential as the
> >> QUERY for observability.
> > 
> > As I said 'bpftool cgroup' covers it. Observability is not reduced in any way.
> 
> You want a feature where a process can prevent another from installing a
> program on a cgroup. How do I learn which process is holding the
> bpf_link reference and preventing me from installing a program? Unless I
> have missed some recent change that is not currently covered by bpftool
> cgroup, and there is no way reading kernel code will tell me.

No. That's not the case at all. You misunderstood the concept.

> That is my point. You are restricting what root can do and people will
> not want to resort to killing random processes trying to find the one
> holding a reference. 

Not true either.
bpf_link = old attach with allow_multi (but with extra safety for owner)
The only thing bpf_link protects is the owner of the link from other
processes of nuking that link.
It does _not_ prevent other processes attaching their own cgroup-bpf progs
either via old interface or via bpf_link.

It will be different for xdp where only one prog is allowed per xdp hook.
There it will prevent other xdp progs. And there link_queury and
"human override" will be necessary.