From: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
To: Christian Barcenas <christian@cbarcenas.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Martin Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
"bpf@vger.kernel.org" <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: respect CAP_IPC_LOCK in RLIMIT_MEMLOCK check
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 18:48:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <246b9dd2-f146-f94c-e029-4b9f6090ec26@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190911181816.89874-1-christian@cbarcenas.com>
On 9/11/19 7:18 PM, Christian Barcenas wrote:
> A process can lock memory addresses into physical RAM explicitly
> (via mlock, mlockall, shmctl, etc.) or implicitly (via VFIO,
> perf ring-buffers, bpf maps, etc.), subject to RLIMIT_MEMLOCK limits.
>
> CAP_IPC_LOCK allows a process to exceed these limits, and throughout
> the kernel this capability is checked before allowing/denying an attempt
> to lock memory regions into RAM.
>
> Because bpf locks its programs and maps into RAM, it should respect
> CAP_IPC_LOCK. Previously, bpf would return EPERM when RLIMIT_MEMLOCK was
> exceeded by a privileged process, which is contrary to documented
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK+CAP_IPC_LOCK behavior.
>
> Fixes: aaac3ba95e4c ("bpf: charge user for creation of BPF maps and programs")
> Signed-off-by: Christian Barcenas <christian@cbarcenas.com>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>
> ---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> index 272071e9112f..e551961f364b 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/syscall.c
> @@ -183,8 +183,9 @@ void bpf_map_init_from_attr(struct bpf_map *map, union bpf_attr *attr)
> static int bpf_charge_memlock(struct user_struct *user, u32 pages)
> {
> unsigned long memlock_limit = rlimit(RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + unsigned long locked = atomic_long_add_return(pages, &user->locked_vm);
>
> - if (atomic_long_add_return(pages, &user->locked_vm) > memlock_limit) {
> + if (locked > memlock_limit && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> atomic_long_sub(pages, &user->locked_vm);
> return -EPERM;
> }
> @@ -1231,7 +1232,7 @@ int __bpf_prog_charge(struct user_struct *user, u32 pages)
>
> if (user) {
> user_bufs = atomic_long_add_return(pages, &user->locked_vm);
> - if (user_bufs > memlock_limit) {
> + if (user_bufs > memlock_limit && !capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK)) {
> atomic_long_sub(pages, &user->locked_vm);
> return -EPERM;
> }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-13 18:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-11 18:18 [PATCH bpf] bpf: respect CAP_IPC_LOCK in RLIMIT_MEMLOCK check Christian Barcenas
2019-09-13 18:48 ` Yonghong Song [this message]
2019-09-16 9:26 ` Daniel Borkmann
2019-09-16 14:09 ` Christian Barcenas
2019-09-16 22:19 ` 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=246b9dd2-f146-f94c-e029-4b9f6090ec26@fb.com \
--to=yhs@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=christian@cbarcenas.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
/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