Re: Permissions for eBPF objects
flat view
From: Chenbo Feng <hidden>
Date: 2017-08-29 01:44:27
Also in:
selinux
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 05:47:19PM -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:07:27PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:quoted
On 08/25/2017 09:52 PM, Chenbo Feng wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Jeffrey Vander Stoep [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Stephen Smalley [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:01 -0700, Jeffrey Vander Stoep via Selinux wrote:quoted
I’d like to get your thoughts on adding LSM permission checks on BPF objects.before reinventing the wheel please take a look at landlock work. Everything that was discussed in this thread is covered by it. The patches have been in development for more than a year and most of the early issues have been resolved. It will be presented again during security summit in LA in September.I am not very familiar with landlock lsm, isn't this module also depend on the lsm hooks to do the landlock check? If so then adding lsm hooks for eBPF object seems not conflict with the work on progress.I see. I got it the other way around. What lsm checks are you proposing? and why unprivileged_bpf_disabled is not enough? you want to allow unpriv only for specific user(s) ?
Exactly, the proposal patch I am currently working on will add checks before map creation, map read, and map modify, since all these functionalities will be available to all users when unprivileged_bpf_disabled is turned off. And eBPF prog_load may also need a check as well since loading some types of program is not restricted either.