From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: 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: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:36:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190815003602.yp3udcr5mtgw6qrv@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <317422C3-ACE3-42A7-A287-7B8FEE12E33A@amacapital.net>
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 04:59:18PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 2019, at 4:33 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 03:30:51PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On Aug 14, 2019, at 3:05 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:51:23AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If eBPF is genuinely not usable by programs that are not fully trusted
> >>>> by the admin, then no kernel changes at all are needed. Programs that
> >>>> want to reduce their own privileges can easily fork() a privileged
> >>>> subprocess or run a little helper to which they delegate BPF
> >>>> operations. This is far more flexible than anything that will ever be
> >>>> in the kernel because it allows the helper to verify that the rest of
> >>>> the program is doing exactly what it's supposed to and restrict eBPF
> >>>> operations to exactly the subset that is needed. So a container
> >>>> manager or network manager that drops some provilege could have a
> >>>> little bpf-helper that manages its BPF XDP, firewalling, etc
> >>>> configuration. The two processes would talk over a socketpair.
> >>>
> >>> there were three projects that tried to delegate bpf operations.
> >>> All of them failed.
> >>> bpf operational workflow is much more complex than you're imagining.
> >>> fork() also doesn't work for all cases.
> >>> I gave this example before: consider multiple systemd-like deamons
> >>> that need to do bpf operations that want to pass this 'bpf capability'
> >>> to other deamons written by other teams. Some of them will start
> >>> non-root, but still need to do bpf. They will be rpm installed
> >>> and live upgraded while running.
> >>> We considered to make systemd such centralized bpf delegation
> >>> authority too. It didn't work. bpf in kernel grows quickly.
> >>> libbpf part grows independently. llvm keeps evolving.
> >>> All of them are being changed while system overall has to stay
> >>> operational. Centralized approach breaks apart.
> >>>
> >>>> The interesting cases you're talking about really *do* involved
> >>>> unprivileged or less privileged eBPF, though. Let's see:
> >>>>
> >>>> systemd --user: systemd --user *is not privileged at all*. There's no
> >>>> issue of reducing privilege, since systemd --user doesn't have any
> >>>> privilege to begin with. But systemd supports some eBPF features, and
> >>>> presumably it would like to support them in the systemd --user case.
> >>>> This is unprivileged eBPF.
> >>>
> >>> Let's disambiguate the terminology.
> >>> This /dev/bpf patch set started as describing the feature as 'unprivileged bpf'.
> >>> I think that was a mistake.
> >>> Let's call systemd-like deamon usage of bpf 'less privileged bpf'.
> >>> This is not unprivileged.
> >>> 'unprivileged bpf' is what sysctl kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disabled controls.
> >>>
> >>> There is a huge difference between the two.
> >>> I'm against extending 'unprivileged bpf' even a bit more than what it is
> >>> today for many reasons mentioned earlier.
> >>> The /dev/bpf is about 'less privileged'.
> >>> Less privileged than root. We need to split part of full root capability
> >>> into bpf capability. So that most of the root can be dropped.
> >>> This is very similar to what cap_net_admin does.
> >>> cap_net_amdin can bring down eth0 which is just as bad as crashing the box.
> >>> cap_net_admin is very much privileged. Just 'less privileged' than root.
> >>> Same thing for cap_bpf.
> >>
> >> The new pseudo-capability in this patch set is absurdly broad. I’ve proposed some finer-grained divisions in this thread. Do you have comments on them?
> >
> > Initially I agreed that it's probably too broad, but then realized
> > that they're perfect as-is. There is no need to partition further.
> >
> >>> May be we should do both cap_bpf and /dev/bpf to make it clear that
> >>> this is the same thing. Two interfaces to achieve the same result.
> >>
> >> What for? If there’s a CAP_BPF, then why do you want /dev/bpf? Especially if you define it to do the same thing.
> >
> > Indeed, ambient capabilities should work for all cases.
> >
> >> No, I’m not. I have no objection at all if you try to come up with a clear definition of what the capability checks do and what it means to grant a new permission to a task. Changing *all* of the capable checks is needlessly broad.
> >
> > There are not that many bits left. I prefer to consume single CAP_BPF bit.
> > All capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) checks in kernel/bpf/ will become CAP_BPF.
> > This is no-brainer.
> >
> > The only question is whether few cases of CAP_NET_ADMIN in kernel/bpf/
> > should be extended to CAP_BPF or not.
> > imo devmap and xskmap can stay CAP_NET_ADMIN,
> > but cgroup bpf attach/detach should be either CAP_NET_ADMIN or CAP_BPF.
> > Initially cgroup-bpf hooks were limited to networking.
> > It's no longer the case. Requiring NET_ADMIN there make little sense now.
> >
>
> Cgroup bpf attach/detach, with the current API, gives very strong control over the whole system, and it will just get stronger as bpf gains features. Making it CAP_BPF means that you will never have the ability to make CAP_BPF safe to give to anything other than an extremely highly trusted process. Unsafe pointers are similar.
'never to less trusted process' ? why do you think so?
I don't see a problem adding /dev/bpf/foo in the future and make things
more granular. There is no such use case today. Hence I don't want to
spend time and design something without clear use case in mind.
> Do new programs really need the by_id calls?
yes. Lorenz gave an example earlier. map-in-map returns map_id.
To operate on that map by_id is needed.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-15 0:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190627201923.2589391-1-songliubraving@fb.com>
[not found] ` <20190627201923.2589391-2-songliubraving@fb.com>
[not found] ` <21894f45-70d8-dfca-8c02-044f776c5e05@kernel.org>
[not found] ` <3C595328-3ABE-4421-9772-8D41094A4F57@fb.com>
[not found] ` <CALCETrWBnH4Q43POU8cQ7YMjb9LioK28FDEQf7aHZbdf1eBZWg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <0DE7F23E-9CD2-4F03-82B5-835506B59056@fb.com>
[not found] ` <CALCETrWBWbNFJvsTCeUchu3BZJ3SH3dvtXLUB2EhnPrzFfsLNA@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <201907021115.DCD56BBABB@keescook>
[not found] ` <CALCETrXTta26CTtEDnzvtd03-WOGdXcnsAogP8JjLkcj4-mHvg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <4A7A225A-6C23-4C0F-9A95-7C6C56B281ED@fb.com>
[not found] ` <CALCETrX2bMnwC6_t4b_G-hzJSfMPrkK4YKs5ebcecv2LJ0rt3w@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <514D5453-0AEE-420F-AEB6-3F4F58C62E7E@fb.com>
[not found] ` <1DE886F3-3982-45DE-B545-67AD6A4871AB@amacapital.net>
[not found] ` <7F51F8B8-CF4C-4D82-AAE1-F0F28951DB7F@fb.com>
[not found] ` <77354A95-4107-41A7-8936-D144F01C3CA4@fb.com>
[not found] ` <369476A8-4CE1-43DA-9239-06437C0384C7@fb.com>
2019-07-30 20:24 ` [PATCH v2 bpf-next 1/4] bpf: unprivileged BPF access via /dev/bpf 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 [this message]
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
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
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=20190815003602.yp3udcr5mtgw6qrv@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.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@amacapital.net \
--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).