netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC UEK5 2/7] bpf: Restrict bpf when kernel lockdown is in confidentiality mode

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]

Date:   Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:06:34 -0400
From:   Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:     eric.snowberg@...cle.com, john.haxby@...cle.com,
        todd.vierling@...cle.com
Cc:     Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC UEK5 2/7] bpf: Restrict bpf when kernel lockdown is
 in confidentiality mode

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:59:59PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> bpf_read() and bpf_read_str() could potentially be abused to (eg) allow
> private keys in kernel memory to be leaked. Disable them if the kernel
> has been locked down in confidentiality mode.
> 
> Suggested-by: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> cc: Chun-Yi Lee <jlee@...e.com>
> cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Signed-off-by: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
> 
> [Backport notes:
>  The upstream version is using enums, and all that fancy code.
>  We are just retroffiting UEK5 a bit and just checking to
>  see if integrity mode has been enabled and if so then
>  allow it. If the default lockdown mode (confidentiality) is on
>  then we don't allow it.]

<sigh>

And that is what I get for _not_ doing --suppress-cc=all

My apologies for spamming you all!

<goes to hide in the corner of shame>