From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, acme@redhat.com,
jamorris@linux.microsoft.com, jannh@google.com,
kpsingh@google.com, Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] Introduce CAP_BPF
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 15:45:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <71f66e31-02d9-a661-af3b-f493140a53e2@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200508215340.41921-1-alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
On 5/8/2020 2:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>
>
> v4->v5:
>
> Split BPF operations that are allowed under CAP_SYS_ADMIN into combination of
> CAP_BPF, CAP_PERFMON, CAP_NET_ADMIN and keep some of them under CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
>
> The user process has to have
> - CAP_BPF and CAP_PERFMON to load tracing programs.
> - CAP_BPF and CAP_NET_ADMIN to load networking programs.
> (or CAP_SYS_ADMIN for backward compatibility).
Is there a case where CAP_BPF is useful in the absence of other capabilities?
I generally object to new capabilities in cases where existing capabilities
are already required.
>
> CAP_BPF solves three main goals:
> 1. provides isolation to user space processes that drop CAP_SYS_ADMIN and switch to CAP_BPF.
> More on this below. This is the major difference vs v4 set back from Sep 2019.
> 2. makes networking BPF progs more secure, since CAP_BPF + CAP_NET_ADMIN
> prevents pointer leaks and arbitrary kernel memory access.
> 3. enables fuzzers to exercise all of the verifier logic. Eventually finding bugs
> and making BPF infra more secure. Currently fuzzers run in unpriv.
> They will be able to run with CAP_BPF.
>
> The patchset is long overdue follow-up from the last plumbers conference.
> Comparing to what was discussed at LPC the CAP* checks at attach time are gone.
> For tracing progs the CAP_SYS_ADMIN check was done at load time only. There was
> no check at attach time. For networking and cgroup progs CAP_SYS_ADMIN was
> required at load time and CAP_NET_ADMIN at attach time, but there are several
> ways to bypass CAP_NET_ADMIN:
> - if networking prog is using tail_call writing FD into prog_array will
> effectively attach it, but bpf_map_update_elem is an unprivileged operation.
> - freplace prog with CAP_SYS_ADMIN can replace networking prog
>
> Consolidating all CAP checks at load time makes security model similar to
> open() syscall. Once the user got an FD it can do everything with it.
> read/write/poll don't check permissions. The same way when bpf_prog_load
> command returns an FD the user can do everything (including attaching,
> detaching, and bpf_test_run).
>
> The important design decision is to allow ID->FD transition for
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN only. What it means that user processes can run
> with CAP_BPF and CAP_NET_ADMIN and they will not be able to affect each
> other unless they pass FDs via scm_rights or via pinning in bpffs.
> ID->FD is a mechanism for human override and introspection.
> An admin can do 'sudo bpftool prog ...'. It's possible to enforce via LSM that
> only bpftool binary does bpf syscall with CAP_SYS_ADMIN and the rest of user
> space processes do bpf syscall with CAP_BPF isolating bpf objects (progs, maps,
> links) that are owned by such processes from each other.
>
> Another significant change from LPC is that the verifier checks are split into
> allow_ptr_leaks and bpf_capable flags. The allow_ptr_leaks disables spectre
> defense and allows pointer manipulations while bpf_capable enables all modern
> verifier features like bpf-to-bpf calls, BTF, bounded loops, indirect stack
> access, dead code elimination, etc. All the goodness.
> These flags are initialized as:
> env->allow_ptr_leaks = perfmon_capable();
> env->bpf_capable = bpf_capable();
> That allows networking progs with CAP_BPF + CAP_NET_ADMIN enjoy modern
> verifier features while being more secure.
>
> Some networking progs may need CAP_BPF + CAP_NET_ADMIN + CAP_PERFMON,
> since subtracting pointers (like skb->data_end - skb->data) is a pointer leak,
> but the verifier may get smarter in the future.
>
> Please see patches for more details.
>
> Alexei Starovoitov (3):
> bpf, capability: Introduce CAP_BPF
> bpf: implement CAP_BPF
> selftests/bpf: use CAP_BPF and CAP_PERFMON in tests
>
> drivers/media/rc/bpf-lirc.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/bpf_verifier.h | 1 +
> include/linux/capability.h | 5 ++
> include/uapi/linux/capability.h | 34 +++++++-
> kernel/bpf/arraymap.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/bpf_struct_ops.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/core.c | 4 +-
> kernel/bpf/cpumap.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/hashtab.c | 4 +-
> kernel/bpf/helpers.c | 4 +-
> kernel/bpf/lpm_trie.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/queue_stack_maps.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/reuseport_array.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/stackmap.c | 2 +-
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 87 ++++++++++++++-----
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 24 ++---
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 3 +
> net/core/bpf_sk_storage.c | 4 +-
> net/core/filter.c | 4 +-
> security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 4 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_verifier.c | 44 ++++++++--
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c | 16 ++--
> .../selftests/bpf/verifier/dead_code.c | 10 +--
> 23 files changed, 191 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-08 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-08 21:53 [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] Introduce CAP_BPF Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-08 21:53 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 1/3] bpf, capability: " Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-08 21:53 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/3] bpf: implement CAP_BPF Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 0:12 ` sdf
2020-05-12 2:36 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 12:50 ` Jordan Glover
2020-05-12 15:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 15:54 ` sdf
2020-05-12 18:39 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 14:35 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-05-12 18:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 20:07 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-05-12 22:56 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 15:05 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-05-12 18:29 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-12 20:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-05-12 20:27 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-05-12 23:01 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-08 21:53 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 3/3] selftests/bpf: use CAP_BPF and CAP_PERFMON in tests Alexei Starovoitov
2020-05-08 22:45 ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2020-05-08 23:00 ` [PATCH v5 bpf-next 0/3] Introduce CAP_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=71f66e31-02d9-a661-af3b-f493140a53e2@schaufler-ca.com \
--to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jamorris@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@google.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--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).