netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf: program: refuse non-O_RDWR flags in BPF_OBJ

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: <CAEf4BzbT93nToU=zRFjbgtKcOStoS4KDELZpdfT7dsN44a7fCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:51:15 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf v2 2/2] bpf: program: refuse non-O_RDWR flags in BPF_OBJ_GET

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 1:14 PM Song Liu <song@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:
> >
> > As for bpf_link, refuse creating a non-O_RDWR fd. Since program fds
> > currently don't allow modifications this is a precaution, not a
> > straight up bug fix.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/inode.c b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> > index dc56237d6960..d2de2abec35b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> > @@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ int bpf_obj_get_user(const char __user *pathname, int flags)
> >                 return PTR_ERR(raw);
>
> For both patches, shall we do the check before bpf_obj_do_get(), which is a few
> lines above?

Map does use f_flags, so we need to let them through. Or did you mean
to do a (type != BPF_TYPE_MAP && f_flags != O_RDWR) check?

Either way is fine with me, so:

Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>

>
> Thanks,
> Song
>
> >
> >         if (type == BPF_TYPE_PROG)
> > -               ret = bpf_prog_new_fd(raw);
> > +               ret = (f_flags != O_RDWR) ? -EINVAL : bpf_prog_new_fd(raw);
> >         else if (type == BPF_TYPE_MAP)
> >                 ret = bpf_map_new_fd(raw, f_flags);
> >         else if (type == BPF_TYPE_LINK)
> > --
> > 2.27.0
> >