On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 8:03 AM Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 7:49 PM Alexei Starovoitov alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:49 PM Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com wrote:
I think we need some clarification on a few of these details, it would be good if you could answer the questions below about the authorization aspects of your design?
- Is the signature validation code in the BPF verifier *always* going
to be enforced when a signature is passed in from userspace? In other words, in your design is there going to be either a kernel build time or runtime configuration knob that could selectively enable (or disable) signature verification in the BPF verifier?
If there is a signature in union bpf_attr and it's incorrect the prog_load command will be rejected. No point in adding a knob to control that.
I agree that when a signature is provided and that signature check fails, the BPF load should be rejected. I'm simply trying to understand how you envision your design handling all of the cases, not just this one, as well as what build and runtime options you expect for controlling various aspects of this behavior.
- In the case where the signature validation code in the BPF verifier
is active, what happens when a signature is *not* passed in from userspace? Will the BPF verifier allow the program load to take place? Will the load operation be blocked? Will the load operation be subject to a more granular policy, and if so, how do you plan to incorporate that policy decision into the BPF program load path?
If there is no signature the existing loading semantics will remain intact. We can discuss whether to add a sysctl or cgroup knob to disallow loading when signature is not present ...
As mentioned earlier this week, if the BPF verifier is performing the signature verification as KP described, we will need a LSM hook after the verifier to serve as an access control point. Of course that doesn't preclude the addition of some type of sysctl/cgroup/whatever based access control, but the LSM hook would be needed regardless.
No. New hook is not needed.
but it probably should be a job of trivial LSM ...
Exactly. If the LSM is simply verifying the signature validation state of the BPF program being loaded it seems like an addition to IPE would be the best option from an upstream, in-tree perspective. However, with the post verifier LSM hook in place, one could also supply a BPF LSM to do something similar.
It sounds like we are in agreement on the desirability and need for a post verifier LSM hook; we'll keep moving forward with this idea despite KP's earlier objections to the hook.
Don't twist my words please. We're absolutely _not_ in agreement. What I described above can be done with the existing hook and its current set of arguments. We're not going to move or change the existing hook.