From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@cloudflare.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: link: refuse non-zero file_flags in BPF_OBJ_GET
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 21:43:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbC75N2xHW0kB76AZCbnD+01LA5T+tn4XfBPL=b=xNS4A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210325152146.188654-1-lmb@cloudflare.com>
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 8:22 AM Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>
> Invoking BPF_OBJ_GET on a pinned bpf_link checks the path access
> permissions based on file_flags, but the returned fd ignores flags.
> This means that any user can acquire a "read-write" fd for a pinned
> link with mode 0664 by invoking BPF_OBJ_GET with BPF_F_RDONLY in
> file_flags. The fd can be used to invoke BPF_LINK_DETACH, etc.
>
> Fix this by refusing non-zero flags in BPF_OBJ_GET. Since zero flags
> imply O_RDWR this requires users to have read-write access to the
> pinned file, which matches the behaviour of the link primitive.
>
> libbpf doesn't expose a way to set file_flags for links, so this
> change is unlikely to break users.
>
> Fixes: 70ed506c3bbc ("bpf: Introduce pinnable bpf_link abstraction")
> Signed-off-by: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
> ---
Makes sense, but see below about details.
Also, should we do the same for BPF programs as well? I guess they
don't have a "write operation", once loaded, but still...
> kernel/bpf/inode.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/inode.c b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> index 1576ff331ee4..2f9e8115ad58 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/inode.c
> @@ -547,7 +547,7 @@ int bpf_obj_get_user(const char __user *pathname, int flags)
> else if (type == BPF_TYPE_MAP)
> ret = bpf_map_new_fd(raw, f_flags);
> else if (type == BPF_TYPE_LINK)
> - ret = bpf_link_new_fd(raw);
> + ret = (flags) ? -EINVAL : bpf_link_new_fd(raw);
nit: unnecessary ()
I wonder if EACCESS would make more sense here? And check f_flags, not flags:
if (f_flags != O_RDWR)
ret = -EACCESS;
else
ret = bpf_link_new_fd(raw);
?
> else
> return -ENOENT;
>
> --
> 2.27.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-26 4:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-25 15:21 [PATCH bpf] bpf: link: refuse non-zero file_flags in BPF_OBJ_GET Lorenz Bauer
2021-03-26 4:43 ` Andrii Nakryiko [this message]
2021-03-26 9:21 ` Lorenz Bauer
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='CAEf4BzbC75N2xHW0kB76AZCbnD+01LA5T+tn4XfBPL=b=xNS4A@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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).