netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/8] bpf: fail BPF_TOKEN_CREATE if no delegation option was set on BPF FS

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, 8 Dec 2023 22:49:52 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, paul@...l-moore.com,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
	kernel-team@...a.com, sargun@...gun.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/8] bpf: fail BPF_TOKEN_CREATE if no delegation
 option was set on BPF FS

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 10:54:36AM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> It's quite confusing in practice when it's possible to successfully
> create a BPF token from BPF FS that didn't have any of delegate_xxx
> mount options set up. While it's not wrong, it's actually more
> meaningful to reject BPF_TOKEN_CREATE with specific error code (-ENOENT)
> to let user-space know that no token delegation is setup up.
> 
> So, instead of creating empty BPF token that will be always ignored
> because it doesn't have any of the allow_xxx bits set, reject it with
> -ENOENT. If we ever need empty BPF token to be possible, we can support
> that with extra flag passed into BPF_TOKEN_CREATE.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> ---

Might consider EOPNOTSUPP (or whatever the correct way of spelling this
is). Otherwise,
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>