Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] bpf: enable non-root eBPF programs

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/5/15 2:00 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Alexei Starovoitov<ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In order to let unprivileged users load and execute eBPF programs
>>> >teach verifier to prevent pointer leaks.
>>> >Verifier will prevent
>>> >- any arithmetic on pointers
>>> >   (except R10+Imm which is used to compute stack addresses)
>>> >- comparison of pointers
>>> >- passing pointers to helper functions
>>> >- indirectly passing pointers in stack to helper functions
>>> >- returning pointer from bpf program
>>> >- storing pointers into ctx or maps
>>
>> Does the arithmetic restriction include using a pointer as an index to
>> a maps-based tail call? I'm still worried about pointer-based
>> side-effects.
>
>
> the array maps that hold FDs (BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY and
> BPF_MAP_TYPE_PERF_EVENT_ARRAY) don't have lookup/update accessors
> from the program side, so programs cannot see or manipulate
> those pointers.
> For the former only bpf_tail_call() is allowed that takes integer
> index and jumps to it. And the latter map accessed with
> bpf_perf_event_read() that also takes index only (this helper
> is not available to socket filters anyway).
> Also bpf_tail_call() can only jump to the program of the same type.
> So I'm quite certain it's safe.

At some point there will be an unprivileged way to create a map,
though, and we don't want to let pointers get poked into the map.

Or am I misunderstanding?

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/