From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@fb.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:38:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA2D2573-D90D-4904-A8B5-08C9C5FC7A56@amacapital.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190819172718.jwnvvotssxwhc7m6@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
> On Aug 19, 2019, at 10:27 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:15:11AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Alexei,
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 10:28:29PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Aug 2019, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>> While real usecases are helpful to understand a design decision, the design
>>>> needs to be usecase independent.
>>>>
>>>> The kernel provides mechanisms, not policies. My impression of this whole
>>>> discussion is that it is policy driven. That's the wrong approach.
>>>
>>> not sure what you mean by 'policy driven'.
>>> Proposed CAP_BPF is a policy?
>>
>> I was referring to the discussion as a whole.
>>
>>> Can kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled=1 be used now?
>>> Yes, but it will weaken overall system security because things that
>>> use unpriv to load bpf and CAP_NET_ADMIN to attach bpf would need
>>> to move to stronger CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>>>
>>> With CAP_BPF both load and attach would happen under CAP_BPF
>>> instead of CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>>
>> I'm not arguing against that.
>>
>>>> So let's look at the mechanisms which we have at hand:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Capabilities
>>>>
>>>> 2) SUID and dropping priviledges
>>>>
>>>> 3) Seccomp and LSM
>>>>
>>>> Now the real interesting questions are:
>>>>
>>>> A) What kind of restrictions does BPF allow? Is it a binary on/off or is
>>>> there a more finegrained control of BPF functionality?
>>>>
>>>> TBH, I can't tell.
>>>>
>>>> B) Depending on the answer to #A what is the control possibility for
>>>> #1/#2/#3 ?
>>>
>>> Can any of the mechanisms 1/2/3 address the concern in mds.rst?
>>
>> Well, that depends. As with any other security policy which is implemented
>> via these mechanisms, the policy can be strict enough to prevent it by not
>> allowing certain operations. The more fine-grained the control is, it
>> allows the administrator who implements the policy to remove the
>> 'dangerous' parts from an untrusted user.
>>
>> So really question #A is important for this. Is BPF just providing a binary
>> ON/OFF knob or does it allow to disable/enable certain aspects of BPF
>> functionality in a more fine grained way? If the latter, then it might be
>> possible to control functionality which might be abused for exploits of
>> some sorts (including MDS) in a way which allows other parts of BBF to be
>> exposed to less priviledged contexts.
>
> I see. So the kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled knob is binary and I think it's
> the right mechanism to expose to users.
> Having N knobs for every map/prog type won't decrease attack surface.
> In the other email Andy's quoting seccomp man page...
> Today seccomp cannot really look into bpf_attr syscall args, but even
> if it could it won't secure the system.
> Examples:
> 1.
> spectre v2 is using bpf in-kernel interpreter in speculative way.
> The mere presence of interpreter as part of kernel .text makes the exploit
> easier to do. That was the reason to do CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON.
> For this case even kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled=1 was hopeless.
>
> 2.
> var4 doing store hazard. It doesn't matter which program type is used.
> load/store instructions are the same across program types.
>
> 3.
> prog_array was used as part of var1. I guess it was simply more
> convenient for Jann to do it this way :) All other map types
> have the same out-of-bounds speculation issue.
>
> In general side channels are cpu bugs that are exploited via sequences
> of cpu instructions. In that sense bpf infra provides these instructions.
> So all program types and all maps have the same level of 'side channel risk'.
>
>>> I believe Andy wants to expand the attack surface when
>>> kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled=0
>>> Before that happens I'd like the community to work on addressing the text above.
>>
>> Well, that text above can be removed when the BPF wizards are entirely sure
>> that BPF cannot be abused to exploit stuff.
>
> Myself and Daniel looked at it in detail. I think we understood
> MDS mechanism well enough. Right now we're fairly confident that
> combination of existing mechanisms we did for var4 and
> verifier speculative analysis protect us from MDS.
> The thing is that every new cpu bug is looked at through the bpf lenses.
> Can it be exploited through bpf? Complexity of side channels
> is growing. Can the most recent swapgs be exploited ?
> What if we kprobe+bpf somewhere ?
> I don't think there is an issue, but we will never be 'entirely sure'.
> Even if myself and Daniel are sure the concern will stay.
> Unprivileged bpf as a whole is the concern due to side channels.
> The number of them are not yet disclosed. Who is going to analyze them?
> imo the only answer to that is kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled=1
> which together with CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON is secure enough.
> The other option is to sprinkle every bpf load/store with lfence
> which will make execution so slow that it will be unusable.
> Which is effectively the same as unprivileged_bpf_disabled=1.
>
> There are other things we can do. Like kasan-style shadow memory
> for bpf execution. Auto re-JITing the code after it's running.
> We can do lfences everywhere for some time then re-JIT
> when kasan-ed shadow memory shows only clean memory accesses.
> The beauty of BPF that it is analyze-able and JIT-able instruction set.
> The verifier speculative analysis is an example that the kernel
> can analyze the speculative execution path that cpu will
> take before the code starts executing.
> Unprivileged bpf can made absolutely secure. It can be
> made more secure than the rest of the kernel.
> But today we should just go with unprivileged_bpf_disabled=1
I’m still okay with this.
> and CAP_BPF.
>
I think this needs more design work. I’m halfway through writing up an actual proposal. I’ll send it soon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-19 17:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 92+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-27 20:19 [PATCH v2 bpf-next 0/4] sys_bpf() access control via /dev/bpf Song Liu
2019-06-27 20:19 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access " Song Liu
2019-06-27 23:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-27 23:42 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-06-28 10:28 ` Christian Brauner
2019-06-28 9:05 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-06-28 19:04 ` Song Liu
2019-06-30 0:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-01 9:03 ` Song Liu
2019-07-02 1:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-02 18:24 ` Kees Cook
2019-07-02 21:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-02 23:48 ` Song Liu
2019-07-22 20:53 ` Song Liu
2019-07-23 10:45 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-07-23 15:11 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-23 22:56 ` Song Liu
2019-07-24 1:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-24 6:30 ` Song Liu
2019-07-27 18:20 ` Song Liu
2019-07-30 5:07 ` Song Liu
2019-07-30 20:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-31 8:10 ` Song Liu
2019-07-31 19:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-02 7:21 ` Song Liu
2019-08-04 22:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-05 0:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-05 5:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-05 7:36 ` Song Liu
2019-08-05 17:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-05 19:21 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-05 21:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-05 22:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-06 1:11 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-07 5:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-07 9:03 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-08-07 13:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-13 21:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-13 22:26 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-08-13 23:24 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-13 23:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-14 0:57 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-14 17:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-14 22:05 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-14 22:30 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-14 23:33 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-14 23:59 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-15 0:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-15 11:24 ` Jordan Glover
2019-08-15 17:28 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-15 18:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-15 23:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-16 9:34 ` Jordan Glover
2019-08-16 9:59 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-16 11:33 ` Jordan Glover
2019-08-16 19:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-16 20:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-17 15:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-17 15:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-19 9:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-08-19 17:27 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-19 17:38 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2019-08-15 18:43 ` Jordan Glover
2019-08-15 19:46 ` Kees Cook
2019-08-15 23:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-16 0:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-16 5:56 ` Song Liu
2019-08-16 21:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-16 22:22 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-17 15:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-17 15:16 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-17 15:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-17 15:42 ` Christian Brauner
2019-08-22 14:17 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-08-22 15:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-22 15:17 ` RFC: very rough draft of a bpf permission model Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-22 23:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-23 23:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-26 22:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-27 0:05 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-08-27 0:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2019-08-22 22:48 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf Alexei Starovoitov
2019-07-30 20:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-07-31 7:44 ` Song Liu
2019-06-28 9:01 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-06-28 19:10 ` Song Liu
2019-07-01 9:34 ` Lorenz Bauer
2019-07-02 19:22 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2019-07-03 7:28 ` Greg KH
2019-06-27 20:19 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 2/4] bpf: sync tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h Song Liu
2019-06-27 20:19 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 3/4] libbpf: add libbpf_[enable|disable]_sys_bpf() Song Liu
2019-06-27 20:19 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 4/4] bpftool: use libbpf_[enable|disable]_sys_bpf() Song Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA2D2573-D90D-4904-A8B5-08C9C5FC7A56@amacapital.net \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).