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;
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 20:17:31 +0100
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        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>,
        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 v7 4/8] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and
 execution
Message-ID: <20200327191731.GA9419@chromium.org>
References: <20200326142823.26277-1-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20200326142823.26277-5-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <alpine.LRH.2.21.2003271119420.17089@namei.org>
 <2241c806-65c9-68f5-f822-9a245ecf7ba0@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <20200327124115.GA8318@chromium.org>
 <14ff822f-3ca5-7ebb-3df6-dd02249169d2@tycho.nsa.gov>
 <a3f6d9f8-6425-af28-d472-fad642439b69@schaufler-ca.com>
 <202003271143.71E0C591C1@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202003271143.71E0C591C1@keescook>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 27-M?r 11:59, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 09:36:15AM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > On 3/27/2020 6:43 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On 3/27/20 8:41 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> > >> On 27-M?r 08:27, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > >>>>> +??????? return -EPERM;

[...]

> > >
> > > I would favor removing the CAP_MAC_ADMIN check here, and implementing it in a bpf_prog hook for Smack and AppArmor if they want that.? SELinux would implement its own check in its existing bpf_prog hook.
> > >
> > The whole notion of one security module calling into another for permission
> > to do something still gives me the heebee jeebees, but if more nimble minds
> > than mine think this is a good idea I won't nack it.
> 
> Well, it's a hook into BPF prog creation, not the BPF LSM specifically,
> so that's why I think it's general enough control without it being
> directly weird. :)
> 
> As far as dropping CAP_MAC_ADMIN, yeah, that should be fine. Creating LSM
> BPF programs already requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN, so for SELinux-less systems,
> that's likely fine. If we need to change the BPF program creation access
> control in the future we can revisit it then.

Sounds good, I will send out v8 carrying James and Andri's
Acks/Review tags, CAP_MAC_ADMIN check removed and some other minor
fixes.

- KP

> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook