From: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@google.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 4/8] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 20:17:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200327191731.GA9419@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202003271143.71E0C591C1@keescook>
On 27-Mär 11:59, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:36:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 3/27/2020 6:43 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On 3/27/20 8:41 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> > >> On 27-Mär 08:27, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > >>>>> + return -EPERM;
[...]
> > >
> > > I would favor removing the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check here, and implementing it in a bpf_prog hook for Smack and AppArmor if they want that. SELinux would implement its own check in its existing bpf_prog hook.
> > >
> > The whole notion of one security module calling into another for permission
> > to do something still gives me the heebee jeebees, but if more nimble minds
> > than mine think this is a good idea I won't nack it.
>
> Well, it's a hook into BPF prog creation, not the BPF LSM specifically,
> so that's why I think it's general enough control without it being
> directly weird. :)
>
> As far as dropping CAP_MAC_ADMIN, yeah, that should be fine. Creating LSM
> BPF programs already requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN, so for SELinux-less systems,
> that's likely fine. If we need to change the BPF program creation access
> control in the future we can revisit it then.
Sounds good, I will send out v8 carrying James and Andri's
Acks/Review tags, CAP_MAC_ADMIN check removed and some other minor
fixes.
- KP
>
> --
> Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-27 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-26 14:28 [PATCH bpf-next v7 0/8] MAC and Audit policy using eBPF (KRSI) KP Singh
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 1/8] bpf: Introduce BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:27 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 2/8] security: Refactor declaration of LSM hooks KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:28 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 3/8] bpf: lsm: provide attachment points for BPF LSM programs KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:29 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 4/8] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution KP Singh
2020-03-26 19:12 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-26 19:39 ` KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:24 ` James Morris
2020-03-27 12:27 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-03-27 12:41 ` KP Singh
2020-03-27 13:43 ` Stephen Smalley
2020-03-27 14:29 ` KP Singh
2020-03-27 16:36 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-03-27 18:59 ` Kees Cook
2020-03-27 19:17 ` KP Singh [this message]
2020-03-27 3:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-03-27 15:06 ` KP Singh
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 5/8] bpf: lsm: Initialize the BPF LSM hooks KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:29 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 6/8] tools/libbpf: Add support for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:30 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests " KP Singh
2020-03-26 19:24 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-26 19:44 ` KP Singh
2020-03-27 0:31 ` James Morris
2020-03-26 14:28 ` [PATCH bpf-next v7 8/8] bpf: lsm: Add Documentation KP Singh
2020-03-26 19:31 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-26 20:56 ` KP Singh
2020-03-26 22:01 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-03-27 0:33 ` James Morris
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=20200327191731.GA9419@chromium.org \
--to=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=revest@google.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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).