From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: joeyli Subject: Re: An actual suggestion (Re: [GIT PULL] Kernel lockdown for secure boot) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 09:48:20 +0800 Message-ID: <20180405014820.GB7362@linux-l9pv.suse> References: <1119.1522858644@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <15406.1522880367@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15406.1522880367@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Howells Cc: Jann Horn , Alexei Starovoitov , Andy Lutomirski , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Matthew Garrett , Linus Torvalds , Ard Biesheuvel , James Morris , Alan Cox , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Justin Forbes , linux-man , LSM List , Linux API , Kees Cook , linux-efi List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:19:27PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Jann Horn wrote: > > > > Uh, no. bpf, for example, can be used to modify kernel memory. > > > > I'm pretty sure bpf isn't supposed to be able to modify arbitrary > > kernel memory. AFAIU if you can use BPF to write to arbitrary kernel > > memory, that's a bug; with CAP_SYS_ADMIN, you can read from userspace, > > write to userspace, and read from kernelspace, but you shouldn't be > > able to write to kernelspace. > > Ah - you may be right. I seem to have misremembered what Joey Lee wrote in > his patch description. > Sorry for it's my fault to misunderstood the behavoir of bpf with CAP_SYS_ADMIN. Joey Lee