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 <>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <>,,,
Subject: Re: SO_PEERSEC protections in sk_getsockopt()?

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:44 PM Paul Moore <> 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 ...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists