netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] flow_dissector: reject invalid attach

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: <5ee9bcefda5a3_1d4a2af9b18625c4c0@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 23:49:19 -0700
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@...udflare.com>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] flow_dissector: reject invalid attach_flags

Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:30 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 04:55, Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:43 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 at 23:36, Alexei Starovoitov
> > > > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:02 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using BPF_PROG_ATTACH on a flow dissector program supports neither flags
> > > > > > nor target_fd but accepts any value. Return EINVAL if either are non-zero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> > > > > > Fixes: b27f7bb590ba ("flow_dissector: Move out netns_bpf prog callbacks")
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c | 3 +++
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c b/kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c
> > > > > > index 78cf061f8179..56133e78ae4f 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/net_namespace.c
> > > > > > @@ -192,6 +192,9 @@ int netns_bpf_prog_attach(const union bpf_attr *attr, struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > > > > >         struct net *net;
> > > > > >         int ret;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +       if (attr->attach_flags || attr->target_fd)
> > > > > > +               return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +
> > > > >
> > > > > In theory it makes sense, but how did you test it?
> > > >
> > > > Not properly it seems, sorry!
> > > >
> > > > > test_progs -t flow
> > > > > fails 5 tests.
> > > >
> > > > I spent today digging through this, and the issue is actually more annoying than
> > > > I thought. BPF_PROG_DETACH for sockmap and flow_dissector ignores
> > > > attach_bpf_fd. The cgroup and lirc2 attach point use this to make sure that the
> > > > program being detached is actually what user space expects. We actually have
> > > > tests that set attach_bpf_fd for these to attach points, which tells
> > > > me that this is
> > > > an easy mistake to make.

In sockmap case I didn't manage to think what multiple programs of the same type
on the same map would look like so we can just remove whatever program is there.
Is there a problem with this or is it that we just want the sanity check.

> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately I can't come up with a good fix that seems backportable:
> > > > - Making sockmap and flow_dissector have the same semantics as cgroup
> > > >   and lirc2 requires a bunch of changes (probably a new function for sockmap)
> > >
> > > making flow dissector pass prog_fd as cg and lirc is certainly my preference.
> > > Especially since tests are passing fd user code is likely doing the same,
> > > so breakage is unlikely. Also it wasn't done that long ago, so
> > > we can backport far enough.
> > > It will remove cap_net_admin ugly check in bpf_prog_detach()
> > > which is the only exception now in cap model.
> >
> > SGTM. What about sockmap though? The code for that has been around for ages.
> 
> you mean the second patch that enforces sock_map_get_from_fd doesn't
> use attach_flags?
> I think it didn't break anything, so enforcing is fine.

I'm ok with enforcing it.

> 
> or the detach part that doesn't use prog_fd ?
> I'm not sure what's the best here.
> At least from cap perspective it's fine because map_fd is there.
> 
> John, wdyt?

I think we can keep the current detach without the prog_fd as-is. And
then add logic so that if the prog_fd is included we check it?