On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 8:32 AM Roberto Sassu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:54 PM
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 5:36 AM Roberto Sassu <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Roberto Sassu [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 9:12 AM
> > > > > From: Alexei Starovoitov [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > > > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 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.
>
> For bpf_verify_pkcs7_signature(), we need the search permission
> on the keyring containing the key used for signature verification.
you mean lookup_user_key(serial, flags, KEY_NEED_SEARCH) ?
right. and ? what's your point?