Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:34:52 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Cc:     Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@gmail.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 4/7] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and
 execution
Message-ID: <202003241133.16C02BE5B@keescook>
References: <CAEjxPJ4MukexdmAD=py0r7vkE6vnn6T1LVcybP_GSJYsAdRuxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200324145003.GA2685@chromium.org>
 <CAEjxPJ4YnCCeQUTK36Ao550AWProHrkrW1a6K5RKuKYcPcfhyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d578d19f-1d3b-f60d-f803-2fcb46721a4a@schaufler-ca.com>
 <CAEjxPJ59wijpB=wa4ZhPyX_PRXrRAX2+PO6e8+f25wrb9xndRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <202003241100.279457EF@keescook>
 <20200324180652.GA11855@chromium.org>
 <CAEjxPJ7ebh1FHBjfuoWquFLJi0TguipfRq5ozaSepLVt8+qaMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200324182759.GA5557@chromium.org>
 <20200324183130.GA6784@chromium.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200324183130.GA6784@chromium.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 07:31:30PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> On 24-M?r 19:27, KP Singh wrote:
> > We do not have a specific capable check for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM programs
> > now. There is a general check which requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN when
> > unprivileged BPF is disabled:
> > 
> > in kernel/bpf/sycall.c:
> > 
> >         if (sysctl_unprivileged_bpf_disabled && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > 	        return -EPERM;
> > 
> > AFAIK, Most distros disable unprivileged eBPF.
> > 
> > Now that I look at this, I think we might need a CAP_MAC_ADMIN check
> > though as unprivileged BPF being enabled will result in an
> > unprivileged user being able to load MAC policies.
> 
> Actually we do have an extra check for loading BPF programs:
> 
> 
> in kernel/bpf/syscall.c:bpf_prog_load
> 
> 	if (type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER &&
> 	    type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB &&
> 	    !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> 		return -EPERM;
> 
> Do you think we still need a CAP_MAC_ADMIN check for LSM programs?

IMO, these are distinct privileges on the non-SELinux system. I think
your patch is fine as-is.

-- 
Kees Cook