On 6 April 2017 at 13:29, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 09:17:25PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
>> From: Chun-Yi Lee <j...@suse.com>
>>
>> There are some bpf functions can be used to read kernel memory:
>> bpf_probe_read, bpf_probe_write_user and bpf_trace_printk. These allow
>> private keys in kernel memory (e.g. the hibernation image signing key) to
>> be read by an eBPF program. Prohibit those functions when the kernel is
>> locked down.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chun-Yi Lee <j...@suse.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowe...@redhat.com>
>> cc: net...@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>
>> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 11 +++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> index cee9802cf3e0..7fde851f207b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
>> @@ -65,6 +65,11 @@ BPF_CALL_3(bpf_probe_read, void *, dst, u32, size, const
>> void *, unsafe_ptr)
>> {
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (kernel_is_locked_down()) {
>> + memset(dst, 0, size);
>> + return -EPERM;
>> + }
>
> this will obviously break the program. How about disabling loading tracing
> programs during the lockdown completely?
>
> Also is there a description of what this lockdown trying to accomplish?
> The cover letter is scarce in details.
>
This is a very good point, and this is actually feedback that was
given (by Alan Cox, iirc) the last time this series was circulated.
This series is a mixed bag of patches that all look like they improve
'security' in one way or the other. But what is lacking is a coherent
view on the threat model, and to what extent all these patches reduce
the vulnerability to such threats. Without that, these patches do very
little beyond giving a false sense of security, imo.
