From: Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: add boot parameters for sysctl knobs
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 18:50:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180525165009.GA20952@asgard.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180524233449.ga664pzexrkzepfv@ast-mbp>
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:34:51PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 May 2018 15:02:45 -0700
> > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:18:19PM +0200, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> > > > Some BPF sysctl knobs affect the loading of BPF programs, and during
> > > > system boot/init stages these sysctls are not yet configured.
> > > > A concrete example is systemd, that has implemented loading of BPF
> > > > programs.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, to allow controlling these setting at early boot, this patch set
> > > > adds the ability to change the default setting of these sysctl knobs
> > > > as well as option to override them via a boot-time kernel parameter
> > > > (in order to avoid rebuilding kernel each time a need of changing these
> > > > defaults arises).
> > > >
> > > > The sysctl knobs in question are kernel.unprivileged_bpf_disable,
> > > > net.core.bpf_jit_harden, and net.core.bpf_jit_kallsyms.
> > >
> > > - systemd is root. today it only uses cgroup-bpf progs which require root,
> > > so disabling unpriv during boot time makes no difference to systemd.
> > > what is the actual reason to present time?
systemd also runs a lot of code, some of which is unprivileged.
> > > - say in the future systemd wants to use so_reuseport+bpf for faster
> > > networking. With unpriv disable during boot, it will force systemd
> > > to do such networking from root, which will lower its security barrier.
No, it will force systemd not to use SO_REUSEPORT BPF.
> > > - bpf_jit_kallsyms sysctl has immediate effect on loaded programs.
> > > Flipping it during the boot or right after or any time after
> > > is the same thing. Why add such boot flag then?
Well, that one was for completeness.
> > > - jit_harden can be turned on by systemd. so turning it during the boot
> > > will make systemd progs to be constant blinded.
> > > Constant blinding protects kernel from unprivileged JIT spraying.
> > > Are you worried that systemd will attack the kernel with JIT spraying?
I'm worried that systemd can be exploited for a JIT spraying attack.
Another thing I'm concerned with is that the generated code is different,
which introduces additional complication during debugging.
> > I think you are missing that, we want the ability to change these
> > defaults in-order to avoid depending on /etc/sysctl.conf settings, and
> > that the these sysctl.conf setting happen too late.
>
> What does it mean 'happens too late' ?
> Too late for what?
> sysctl.conf has plenty of system critical knobs like
> kernel.perf_event_paranoid, kernel.core_pattern, etc
> The behavior of the host is drastically different after sysctl config
> is applied.
>
> > For example with jit_harden, there will be a difference between the
> > loaded BPF program that got loaded at boot-time with systemd (no
> > constant blinding) and when someone reloads that systemd service after
> > /etc/sysctl.conf have been evaluated and setting bpf_jit_harden (now
> > slower due to constant blinding). This is inconsistent behavior.
>
> net.core.bpf_jit_harden can be flipped back and forth at run-time,
> so bpf progs before and after will be either blinded or not.
> I don't see any inconsistency.
That can't be the reason to maintain that inconsistency.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-25 16:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-23 12:18 [PATCH bpf-next v2 0/3] bpf: add boot parameters for sysctl knobs Eugene Syromiatnikov
2018-05-23 22:02 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-24 7:41 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-05-24 23:34 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-25 16:50 ` Eugene Syromiatnikov [this message]
2018-05-25 19:44 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2018-05-29 8:37 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
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=20180525165009.GA20952@asgard.redhat.com \
--to=esyr@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kai.heng.feng@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@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).