netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/14] bpf: net: Consider optval.is_bpf before capable check in sock

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: <20220727184759.j6g4b65uvlp5cnrv@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 11:47:59 -0700
From:   Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
To:     sdf@...gle.com
Cc:     bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, kernel-team@...com,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 03/14] bpf: net: Consider optval.is_bpf before
 capable check in sock_setsockopt()

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 09:54:08AM -0700, sdf@...gle.com wrote:
> On 07/26, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > When bpf program calling bpf_setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET),
> > it could be run in softirq and doesn't make sense to do the capable
> > check.  There was a similar situation in bpf_setsockopt(TCP_CONGESTION).
> 
> Should we instead skip these capability checks based on something like
> in_serving_softirq? I wonder if we might be mixing too much into that
> is_bpf flag (locking assumptions, context assumptions, etc)?
Yes, the bit can be splitted as another reply in patch 2.
I don't think in_serving_softirq is a good fit name.  Some of the
hooks is not in_serving_softirq.  is_bpf should be a better name
for this.