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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 10:50 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> was also thinking that we can do it only in paths that actually
> >> have multiple protocol layers, since today bpf is mainly used with
> >> tcpdump(raw_socket) and new af_packet fanout both have cb cleared
> >> on RX, because it just came out of alloc_skb and no layers were called,
> >> and on TX we can clear 20 bytes in dev_queue_xmit_nit().
> >> af_unix/netlink also have clean skb. Need to analyze tun and sctp...
> >> but it feels overly fragile to save a branch in sk_filter,
> >> so planning to go with
> >> if(unlikely(prog->cb_access)) memset in sk_filter().
> >>
> >
> > This will break TCP use of sk_filter().
> > skb->cb[] contains useful data in TCP layer.
> >
> >
> 
> Since I don't know too much about the networking details:
> 
> 1. Does "skb->cb" *ever* contain anything useful for an unprivileged user?
> 
> 2. Does sbk->cb form a stable ABI?
> 
> Unless both answers are solid yesses, then maybe the right solution is
> to just deny access entirely to unprivileged users.

So this kind of instrumentation data is not an ABI in a similar fashion as tracing 
information is not an ABI either.

I.e. tracepoints can (and sometimes do) change 'semantics' - in that the 
interpretation of the implementational details behind that data changes as the 
implementation changes. That's not something that can ever be an ABI, just like 
the contents of /proc/kcore or /proc/slabinfo can not be an ABI.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/