Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 22:27:50 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <>
To: Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
        David Drysdale
        "" <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        James Morris
        Sargun Dhillon <>,
        Network Development <>,
        Casey Schaufler <>,
        Linux API <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        LSM List <>,
        "" <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Daniel Mack <>, Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Will Drewry <>, Paul Moore <>,
        Elena Reshetova <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 06/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks

On 30/08/2016 22:18, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Mickaël Salaün <> wrote:
>> On 30/08/2016 20:56, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Aug 25, 2016 12:34 PM, "Mickaël Salaün" <> wrote:
>>>> Add LSM hooks which can be used by userland through Landlock (eBPF)
>>>> programs. This programs are limited to a whitelist of functions (cf.
>>>> next commit). The eBPF program context is depicted by the struct
>>>> landlock_data (cf. include/uapi/linux/bpf.h):
>>>> * hook: LSM hook ID (useful when using the same program for multiple LSM
>>>>   hooks);
>>>> * cookie: the 16-bit value from the seccomp filter that triggered this
>>>>   Landlock program;
>>>> * args[6]: array of LSM hook arguments.
>>>> The LSM hook arguments can contain raw values as integers or
>>>> (unleakable) pointers. The only way to use the pointers are to pass them
>>>> to an eBPF function according to their types (e.g. the
>>>> bpf_landlock_cmp_fs_beneath_with_struct_file function can use a struct
>>>> file pointer).
>>>> For now, there is three hooks for file system access control:
>>>> * file_open;
>>>> * file_permission;
>>>> * mmap_file.
>>> What's the purpose of exposing struct cred * to userspace?  It's
>>> primarily just an optimization to save a bit of RAM, and it's a
>>> dubious optimization at that.  What are you using it for?  Would it
>>> make more sense to use struct task_struct * or struct pid * instead?
>>> Also, exposing struct cred * has a really weird side-effect: it allows
>>> (maybe even encourages) checking for pointer equality between two
>>> struct cred * objects.  Doing so will have erratic results.
>> The pointers exposed in the ePBF context are not directly readable by an
>> unprivileged eBPF program thanks to the strong typing of the Landlock
>> context and the static eBPF verification. There is no way to leak a
>> kernel pointer to userspace from an unprivileged eBPF program: pointer
>> arithmetic and comparison are prohibited. Pointers can only be pass as
>> argument to dedicated eBPF functions.
> I'm not talking about leaking the value -- I'm talking about leaking
> the predicate (a == b) for two struct cred pointers.  That predicate
> shouldn't be available because it has very odd effects.

I'm pretty sure this case is covered with the impossibility of doing
pointers comparison.

>> For now, struct cred * is simply not used by any eBPF function and then
>> not usable at all. It only exist here because I map the LSM hook
>> arguments in a generic/automatic way to the eBPF context.
> Maybe remove it from this patch set then?

Well, this is done with the LANDLOCK_HOOK* macros but I will remove it.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.