Message-Id: <YAockJDIOt3jTqd2@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:30:08 -0800
From:   sdf@...gle.com
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org,
        daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: verify that rebinding to port
 < 1024 from BPF works

On 01/21, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:57:44PM -0800, sdf@...gle.com wrote:
> > On 01/21, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:22:41PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > BPF rewrites from 111 to 111, but it still should mark the port as
> > > > "changed".
> > > > We also verify that if port isn't touched by BPF, it's still  
> prohibited.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c      | 88  
> +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c | 36 ++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644  
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > >  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..840a04ac9042
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +#include <test_progs.h>
> > > > +#include "bind_perm.skel.h"
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > > > +#include <sys/socket.h>
> > > > +#include <sys/capability.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +static int duration;
> > > > +
> > > > +void try_bind(int port, int expected_errno)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct sockaddr_in sin = {};
> > > > +	int fd = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
> > > > +	if (CHECK(fd < 0, "fd", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto close_socket;
> > > > +
> > > > +	sin.sin_family = AF_INET;
> > > > +	sin.sin_port = htons(port);
> > > > +
> > > > +	errno = 0;
> > > > +	bind(fd, (struct sockaddr *)&sin, sizeof(sin));
> > > > +	CHECK(errno != expected_errno, "bind", "errno %d, expected %d",
> > > > +	      errno, expected_errno);
> > > > +
> > > > +close_socket:
> > > > +	if (fd >= 0)
> > > > +		close(fd);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void cap_net_bind_service(cap_flag_value_t flag)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	const cap_value_t cap_net_bind_service = CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE;
> > > > +	cap_t caps;
> > > > +
> > > > +	caps = cap_get_proc();
> > > > +	if (CHECK(!caps, "cap_get_proc", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto free_caps;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (CHECK(cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1,  
> &cap_net_bind_service,
> > > > +			       CAP_CLEAR),
> > > > +		  "cap_set_flag", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto free_caps;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (CHECK(cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1,  
> &cap_net_bind_service,
> > > > +			       CAP_CLEAR),
> > > > +		  "cap_set_flag", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto free_caps;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (CHECK(cap_set_proc(caps), "cap_set_proc", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto free_caps;
> > > > +
> > > > +free_caps:
> > > > +	if (CHECK(cap_free(caps), "cap_free", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto free_caps;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void test_bind_perm(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct bind_perm *skel;
> > > > +	int cgroup_fd;
> > > > +
> > > > +	cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/bind_perm");
> > > > +	if (CHECK(cgroup_fd < 0, "cg-join", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +
> > > > +	skel = bind_perm__open_and_load();
> > > > +	if (CHECK(!skel, "skel-load", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > +		goto close_cgroup_fd;
> > > > +
> > > > +	skel->links.bind_v4_prog =
> > > bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.bind_v4_prog, cgroup_fd);
> > > > +	if (CHECK(IS_ERR(skel->links.bind_v4_prog),
> > > > +		  "cg-attach", "bind4 %ld",
> > > > +		  PTR_ERR(skel->links.bind_v4_prog)))
> > > > +		goto close_skeleton;
> > > > +
> > > > +	cap_net_bind_service(CAP_CLEAR);
> > > > +	try_bind(110, EACCES);
> > > > +	try_bind(111, 0);
> > > > +	cap_net_bind_service(CAP_SET);
> > > > +
> > > > +close_skeleton:
> > > > +	bind_perm__destroy(skel);
> > > > +close_cgroup_fd:
> > > > +	close(cgroup_fd);
> > > > +}
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..2194587ec806
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > +
> > > > +#include <linux/stddef.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > > > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > > > +#include <sys/socket.h>
> > > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > > +#include <bpf/bpf_endian.h>
> > > > +
> > > > +SEC("cgroup/bind4")
> > > > +int bind_v4_prog(struct bpf_sock_addr *ctx)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct bpf_sock *sk;
> > > > +	__u32 user_ip4;
> > > > +	__u16 user_port;
> > > > +
> > > > +	sk = ctx->sk;
> > > > +	if (!sk)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (sk->family != AF_INET)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ctx->type != SOCK_STREAM)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Rewriting to the same value should still cause
> > > > +	 * permission check to be bypassed.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	if (ctx->user_port == bpf_htons(111))
> > > > +		ctx->user_port = bpf_htons(111);
> > > iiuc, this overwrite is essentially the way to ensure the bind
> > > will succeed (override CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE in this particular case?).
> > Correct. The alternative might be to export ignore_perm_check
> > via bpf_sock_addr and make it explicit.
> An explicit field is one option.

> or a different return value (e.g. BPF_PROG_CGROUP_INET_EGRESS_RUN_ARRAY).

> Not sure which one (including the one in the current patch) is better
> at this point.
Same. My reasoning was: if the BPF program rewrites the port, it knows
what it's doing, so it doesn't seem like adding another explicit
signal makes sense. So I decided to go without external api change.

> Also, from patch 1, if one cgrp bpf prog says no-perm-check,
> it does not matter what the latter cgrp bpf progs have to say?
Right, it doesn't matter. But I think it's fine: if the latter
one rewrites the (previously rewritten) address to something
new, it still wants that address to be bound to, right?

If some program returns EPERM, it also doesn't matter.

> > > It seems to be okay if we consider most of the use cases is rewriting
> > > to a different port.
> >
> > > However, it is quite un-intuitive to the bpf prog to overwrite with
> > > the same user_port just to ensure this port can be binded successfully
> > > later.
> > I'm testing a corner case here when the address is rewritten to the same
> > value, but the intention is to rewrite X to Y < 1024.
> It is a legit corner case though.

> Also, is it possible that the compiler may optimize this
> same-value-assignment out?
Yeah, it's a legit case, that's why I tested it. Good point on
optimizing (can be "healed" with volatile?), but it should only matter if
the program is installed to bypass the permission checks for some ports
(as it does in this selftest). As you mention below, it's not clear what's
the 'default' use-case is. Is it rewriting to a different port or just
bypassing the cap_net_bind_service for some ports? Feels like rewriting
to a different address/port was the reason the hooks were added,
so I was targeting this one.

> > > Is user_port the only case? How about other fields in bpf_sock_addr?
> > Good question. For our use case only the port matters because
> > we rewrite both port and address (and never only address).
> >
> > It does feel like it should also work when BPF rewrites address only
> > (and port happens to be in the privileged range). I guess I can
> > apply the same logic to the user_ip4 and user_ip6?
> My concern is having more cases that need to overwrite with the same  
> value.
> Then it may make a stronger case to use return value or an explicit field.
Tried to add some reasoning in the comment above. Let me know what's
your preference is.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists