Re: [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selinux: Add BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD syscall permission

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:

New issues:
- [High] The SELinux access control check for BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD is completely bypassed if the bpf_token_perms policy capability is enabled, leading to Privilege Escalation.

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD fails unconditionally with -EINVAL if CONFIG_BPF_JIT is disabled.
--

--- Patch [4]: [PATCH bpf-next 4/5] selinux: Add BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD syscall permission ---
commit aa42284da62cb224bfd501dfd4306e6584b6a8e1
Author: Thiébaud Weksteen <tweek@google.com>

selinux: Add BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD syscall permission

Add the BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD permission to gate the bpf syscall command of
the same name.

> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index e7c5993f69545..b4ff5ea5306df 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -7196,6 +7196,10 @@ static int selinux_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
>  		ret = avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_BPF, BPF__PROG_LOAD,
>  				   NULL);
>  		break;
> +	case BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD:
> +		ret = avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_BPF, BPF__LOADER_LOAD_FD,
> +				   NULL);
> +		break;

[Severity: High]
Is it possible this check can be completely bypassed if the bpf_token_perms
policy capability is enabled?

Looking at selinux_bpf() earlier in this file, there is an early return:

	if (selinux_policycap_bpf_token_perms())
		return 0;

Because BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD doesn't have a fine-grained SELinux hook later on,
this early return skips the access control check.

Furthermore, loader_load_fd() internally calls kern_sys_bpf() which executes
the inner map creations and program loads with is_kernel = true:

	return __sys_bpf(cmd, KERNEL_BPFPTR(attr), attr_size, KERNEL_BPFPTR(NULL), 0);

This passes the kernel SID (SECINITSID_KERNEL) to the fine-grained hooks
instead of the user's SID:

	ssid = kernel ? SECINITSID_KERNEL : bpfsec->sid;

Will this allow a user with CAP_BPF to bypass their SELinux constraints and
load arbitrary programs as the kernel?

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but will BPF_LOADER_LOAD_FD fail
unconditionally if CONFIG_BPF_JIT is disabled?

Looking at loader_load_fd() in kernel/bpf/syscall.c, it unconditionally calls:

	err = kern_sys_bpf(BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN, &sattr, sizeof(sattr));

However, in kern_sys_bpf(), the BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN case is compiled out when
CONFIG_BPF_JIT is disabled:

	#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_JIT
	case BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN:

This causes it to fall through to the default handler which returns -EINVAL for
BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN, breaking the feature entirely on non-JIT configurations.

>  	default:
>  		ret = 0;
>  		break;

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260813002618.3755631-1-tweek@google.com?part=4