From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-151.mimecast.com ([207.82.80.151]:39144 "EHLO eu-smtp-delivery-151.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728696AbgGWO4i (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 10:56:38 -0400 From: David Laight Subject: RE: [PATCH 03/26] bpfilter: reject kernel addresses Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 14:56:33 +0000 Message-ID: <5fc6b1716f1b4534bda95bab49512754@AcuMS.aculab.com> References: <20200723060908.50081-1-hch@lst.de> <20200723060908.50081-4-hch@lst.de> <20200723144455.GA12280@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20200723144455.GA12280@lst.de> Content-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: 'Christoph Hellwig' Cc: "David S. Miller" , Jakub Kicinski , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Alexey Kuznetsov , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Eric Dumazet , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "bpf@vger.kernel.org" , "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "coreteam@netfilter.org" , "linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-hams@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org" , "bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-can@vger.kernel.org" , "dccp@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-decnet-user@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-wpan@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "mptcp@lists.01.org" , "lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "rds-devel@oss.oracle.com" , "linux-afs@lists.infradead.org" , "tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net" , "linux-x25@vger.kernel.org" From: 'Christoph Hellwig' > Sent: 23 July 2020 15:45 > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 02:42:11PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > From: Christoph Hellwig > > > Sent: 23 July 2020 07:09 > > > > > > The bpfilter user mode helper processes the optval address using > > > process_vm_readv. Don't send it kernel addresses fed under > > > set_fs(KERNEL_DS) as that won't work. > > > > What sort of operations is the bpf filter doing on the sockopt buffers? > > > > Any attempts to reject some requests can be thwarted by a second > > application thread modifying the buffer after the bpf filter has > > checked that it allowed. > > > > You can't do security by reading a user buffer twice. > > I'm not saying that I approve of the design, but the current bpfilter > design uses process_vm_readv to access the buffer, which obviously does > not work with kernel buffers. Is this a different bit of bpf that that which used to directly intercept setsockopt() requests and pass them down from a kernel buffer? I can't held feeling that bpf is getting 'too big for its boots' and will have a local-user privilege escalation hiding in it somewhere. I've had to fix my 'out of tree' driver to remove the [sg]etsockopt() calls. Some of the replacements will go badly wrong if I've accidentally lost track of the socket type. I do have a daemon process sleeping in the driver - so I can wake it up and make the requests from it with a user buffer. I may have to implement that to get the negotiated number of 'ostreams' to an SCTP connection. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)