Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] bpf: Add bpf_lookup_user_key() and bpf_key_put() helpers

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 5:36 AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > From: Roberto Sassu [mailto:roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:12 AM
> > > From: Alexei Starovoitov [mailto:alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 12:33 AM
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 06:37:54PM +0200, Roberto Sassu wrote:
> > > > Add the bpf_lookup_user_key() and bpf_key_put() helpers, to respectively
> > > > search a key with a given serial, and release the reference count of the
> > > > found key.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  include/uapi/linux/bpf.h       | 16 ++++++++++++
> > > >  kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c           | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  kernel/bpf/verifier.c          |  6 +++--
> > > >  scripts/bpf_doc.py             |  2 ++
> > > >  tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 16 ++++++++++++
> > > >  5 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > index e81362891596..7bbcf2cd105d 100644
> > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > > @@ -5325,6 +5325,20 @@ union bpf_attr {
> > > >   *               **-EACCES** if the SYN cookie is not valid.
> > > >   *
> > > >   *               **-EPROTONOSUPPORT** if CONFIG_IPV6 is not builtin.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * struct key *bpf_lookup_user_key(u32 serial, unsigned long flags)
> > > > + *       Description
> > > > + *               Search a key with a given *serial* and the provided *flags*, and
> > > > + *               increment the reference count of the key.
> > >
> > > Why passing 'flags' is ok to do?
> > > Please think through every line of the patch.
> >
> > To be honest, I thought about it. Probably yes, I should do some
> > sanitization, like I did for the keyring ID. When I checked
> > lookup_user_key(), I saw that flags are checked individually, so
> > an arbitrary value passed to the helper should not cause harm.
> > Will do sanitization, if you prefer. It is just that we have to keep
> > the eBPF code in sync with key flag definition (unless we have
> > a 'last' flag).
>
> I'm not sure that having a helper for lookup_user_key() alone is
> correct. By having separate helpers for lookup and usage of the
> key, nothing would prevent an eBPF program to ask for a
> permission to pass the access control check, and then use the
> key for something completely different from what it requested.
>
> Looking at how lookup_user_key() is used in security/keys/keyctl.c,
> it seems clear that it should be used together with the operation
> that needs to be performed. Only in this way, the key permission
> would make sense.

lookup is roughly equivalent to open when all permission checks are done.
And using the key is read/write.

> What do you think (also David)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Roberto
>
> HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES Duesseldorf GmbH, HRB 56063
> Managing Director: Li Peng, Yang Xi, Li He

Please use a different email server and get rid of this.