From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
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>,
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>,
Chenbo Feng <chenbofeng.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: very rough draft of a bpf permission model
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:36:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190826223558.6torq6keplniif6w@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUhXrZaJy8omX_DsH0rAY98YEqR64VuisQSz2Rru8Dqpg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 04:09:11PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 4:26 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You're proposing all of the above in addition to CAP_BPF, right?
> > Otherwise I don't see how it addresses the use cases I kept
> > explaining for the last few weeks.
>
> None of my proposal is intended to exclude changes like CAP_BPF to
> make privileged bpf() operations need less privilege. But I think
> it's very hard to evaluate CAP_BPF without both a full description of
> exactly what CAP_BPF would do and what at least one full example of a
> user would look like.
the example is previous email and systemd example was not "full" ?
> I also think that users who want CAP_BPF should look at manipulating
> their effective capability set instead. A daemon that wants to use
> bpf() but otherwise minimize the chance of accidentally causing a
> problem can use capset() to clear its effective and inheritable masks.
> Then, each time it wants to call bpf(), it could re-add CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> or CAP_NET_ADMIN to its effective set, call bpf(), and then clear its
> effective set again. This works in current kernels and is generally
> good practice.
Such logic means that CAP_NET_ADMIN is not necessary either.
The process could re-add CAP_SYS_ADMIN when it needs to reconfigure
network and then drop it.
> Aside from this, and depending on exactly what CAP_BPF would be, I
> have some further concerns. Looking at your example in this email:
>
> > Here is another example of use case that CAP_BPF is solving:
> > The daemon X is started by pid=1 and currently runs as root.
> > It loads a bunch of tracing progs and attaches them to kprobes
> > and tracepoints. It also loads cgroup-bpf progs and attaches them
> > to cgroups. All progs are collecting data about the system and
> > logging it for further analysis.
>
> This needs more than just bpf(). Creating a perf kprobe event
> requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN, and without a perf kprobe event, you can't
> attach a bpf program.
that is already solved sysctl_perf_event_paranoid.
CAP_BPF is about BPF part only.
> And the privilege to attach bpf programs to
> cgroups without any DAC or MAC checks (which is what the current API
> does) is an extremely broad privilege that is not that much weaker
> than CAP_SYS_ADMIN or CAP_NET_ADMIN. Also:
I don't think there is a hierarchy of CAP_SYS_ADMIN vs CAP_NET_ADMIN
vs CAP_BPF.
CAP_BPF and CAP_NET_ADMIN carve different areas of CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
Just like all other caps.
> > This tracing bpf is looking into kernel memory
> > and using bpf_probe_read. Clearly it's not _secure_. But it's _safe_.
> > The system is not going to crash because of BPF,
> > but it can easily crash because of simple coding bugs in the user
> > space bits of that daemon.
>
> The BPF verifier and interpreter, taken in isolation, may be extremely
> safe, but attaching BPF programs to various hooks can easily take down
> the system, deliberately or by accident. A handler, especially if it
> can access user memory or otherwise fault, will explode if attached to
> an inappropriate kprobe, hw_breakpoint, or function entry trace event.
absolutely not true.
> (I and the other maintainers consider this to be a bug if it happens,
> and we'll fix it, but these bugs definitely exist.) A cgroup-bpf hook
> that blocks all network traffic will effectively kill a machine,
> especially if it's a server.
this permission is granted by CAP_NET_ADMIN. Nothing changes here.
> A bpf program that runs excessively
> slowly attached to a high-frequency hook will kill the system, too.
not true either.
> (I bet a buggy bpf program that calls bpf_probe_read() on an unmapped
> address repeatedly could be make extremely slow. Page faults take
> thousands to tens of thousands of cycles.)
kprobe probing and faulting on non-existent address will do
the same 'damage'. So it's not bpf related.
Also it won't make the system "extremely slow".
Nothing to do with CAP_BPF.
> A bpf firewall rule that's
> wrong can cut a machine off from the network -- I've killed machines
> using iptables more than once, and bpf isn't magically safer.
this is CAP_NET_ADMIN permission. It's a different capability.
>
> I'm wondering if something like CAP_TRACING would make sense.
> CAP_TRACING would allow operations that can reveal kernel memory and
> other secret kernel state but that do not, by design, allow modifying
> system behavior. So, for example, CAP_TRACING would allow privileged
> perf_event_open() operations and privileged bpf verifier usage. But
> it would not allow cgroup-bpf unless further restrictions were added,
> and it would not allow the *_BY_ID operations, as those can modify
> other users' bpf programs' behavior.
Makes little sense to me.
I can imagine CAP_TRACING controlling kprobe/uprobe creation
and probe_read() both from bpf side and from vanilla kprobe.
That would be much nicer interface to use than existing
sysctl_perf_event_paranoid, but that is orthogonal to CAP_BPF
which is strictly about BPF.
> Something finer-grained can mitigate some of this. CAP_BPF as I think
> you're imagining it will not.
I'm afraid this discussion goes nowhere.
We'll post CAP_BPF patches soon so we can discuss code.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-26 22:36 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
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 [this message]
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=20190826223558.6torq6keplniif6w@ast-mbp \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=chenbofeng.kernel@gmail.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 \
/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).