Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALOAHbBj-+xY5jGLynUrg1GfSftZ+LT5DkADKz_+8+tL2kWMSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230403225017.onl5pbp7h2ugclbk@dhcp-172-26-102-232.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CALOAHbDQROKrWe732Qv1CsZwr6nMJN-2y77JW3EuT53D8At+Ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230406020656.7v5ongxyon5fr4s7@dhcp-172-26-102-232.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CALOAHbCEsucGRB+n5hTnPm-HssmB91HD4PFVRhdO=CZnJXfR6A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQ+1VEBHTM5Rm-gx8-bg=tfv=4x+aONhF0bAmBFZG3W8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALOAHbAorooyteDjgs82TtujP4Fwo5hSkh-Z5QhxhV9p7_2mfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAADnVQKr5Y3z9f_Vv49DvRFcN+OF3JaFx_9NgBL58pz+TLq8ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALOAHbDdtj1Qd0h1jzXKN4R=_webEVW=sqYfhSFXXsYftyvnKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf4Bza_vM8HE5g+4ANW3NAAt8=+cn7Lw+DSkH42gimqzYxPdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230407014359.m6tff5ffemvrsyt3@dhcp-172-26-102-232.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <CAEf4BzaBd9y1O_u-ixr+OGiKarHfX95iHUSGtpSbGnrayg7=zQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4BzaBd9y1O_u-ixr+OGiKarHfX95iHUSGtpSbGnrayg7=zQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:05:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJ6LSxZ3=x9AnqiYObYaSnKQj1mWB0CzSn2c4PGRmSUSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 00/13] bpf: Introduce BPF namespace
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:59=E2=80=AFAM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 6:44=E2=80=AFPM Alexei Starovoitov
> <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 01:22:26PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 10:44=E2=80=AFPM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail=
.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 12:24=E2=80=AFPM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 8:22=E2=80=AFPM Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 11:06=E2=80=AFAM Alexei Starovoitov
> > > > > > <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 7:55=E2=80=AFPM Yafang Shao <laoar.sha=
o@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It seems that I didn't describe the issue clearly.
> > > > > > > > The container doesn't have CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but the CAP_SYS_A=
DMIN is
> > > > > > > > required to run bpftool,  so the bpftool running in the con=
tainer
> > > > > > > > can't get the ID of bpf objects or convert IDs to FDs.
> > > > > > > > Is there something that I missed ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing. This is by design. bpftool needs sudo. That's all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, what I'm trying to do is make bpftool run without sudo.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not a task that is worth solving.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Then the container with CAP_BPF enabled can't even iterate its bpf =
progs ...
> > >
> > > I'll leave the BPF namespace discussion aside (I agree that it needs
> > > way more thought).
> > >
> > > I am a bit surprised that we require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for GET_NEXT_ID
> > > operations. GET_FD_BY_ID is definitely CAP_SYS_ADMIN, as they allow
> > > you to take over someone else's link and stuff like this. But just
> > > iterating IDs seems like a pretty innocent functionality, so maybe we
> > > should remove CAP_SYS_ADMIN for GET_NEXT_ID?
> > >
> > > By itself GET_NEXT_ID is relatively useless without capabilities, but
> > > we've been floating the idea of providing GET_INFO_BY_ID (not by FD)
> > > for a while now, and that seems useful in itself, as it would indeed
> > > help tools like bpftool to get *some* information even without
> > > privileges. Whether those GET_INFO_BY_ID operations should return sam=
e
> > > full bpf_{prog,map,link,btf}_info or some trimmed down version of the=
m
> > > would be up to discussion, but I think getting some info without
> > > creating an FD seems useful in itself.
> > >
> > > Would it be worth discussing and solving this separately from
> > > namespacing issues?
> >
> > Iteration of IDs itself is fine. The set of IDs is not security sensiti=
ve,
> > but GET_NEXT_BY_ID has to be carefully restricted.
> > It returns xlated, jited, BTF, line info, etc
> > and with all the restrictions it would need something like
> > CAP_SYS_PTRACE and CAP_PERFMON to be useful.
> > And with that we're not far from CAP_SYS_ADMIN.
> > Why bother then?
>
> You probably meant that GET_INFO_BY_ID should be carefully restricted?

yes.

> So yeah, that's what I said that this would have to be discussed
> further. I agree that returning func/line info, program dump, etc is
> probably a privileged part. But there is plenty of useful info besides
> that (e.g., prog name, insns cnt, run stats, etc) that would be useful
> for unpriv applications to monitor their own apps that they opened
> from BPF FS, or just some observability daemons.
>
> There is a lot of useful information in bpf_map_info and bpf_link_info
> that's way less privileged. I think bpf_link_info is good as is. Same
> for bpf_map_info.
>
> Either way, I'm not insisting, just something that seems pretty simple
> to add and useful in some scenarios. We can reuse existing code and
> types for GET_INFO_BY_FD and just zero-out (or prevent filling out)
> those privileged fields you mentioned. Anyway, something to put on the
> backburner, perhaps.

Sorry, but I only see negatives. It's an extra code in the kernel
that has to be carefully reviewed when initially submitted and
then every patch that touches get_info_by_id would have to go
through a microscope every time to avoid introducing a security issue.
And for what? So that CAP_BPF application can read prog name and run stats?