netdev - Re: SO_PEERSEC protections in sk

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]

Date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:43:15 -0400
From:   Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, selinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SO_PEERSEC protections in sk_getsockopt()?

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:44 PM Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> In commit 4ff09db1b79b ("bpf: net: Change sk_getsockopt() to take the
> sockptr_t argument") I see you wrapped the getsockopt value/len
> pointers with sockptr_t and in the SO_PEERSEC case you pass the
> sockptr_t:user field to avoid having to update the LSM hook and
> implementations.  I think that's fine, especially as you note that
> eBPF does not support fetching the SO_PEERSEC information, but I think
> it would be good to harden this case to prevent someone from calling
> sk_getsockopt(SO_PEERSEC) with kernel pointers.  What do you think of
> something like this?
>
>   static int sk_getsockopt(...)
>   {
>     /* ... */
>     case SO_PEERSEC:
>       if (optval.is_kernel || optlen.is_kernel)
>         return -EINVAL;
>       return security_socket_getpeersec_stream(...);
>     /* ... */
>   }

Any thoughts on this Martin, Alexei?  It would be nice to see this
fixed soon ...

-- 
paul-moore.com