lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: allow loading instructions from a fd
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 7:31 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 03:05:11PM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > From: Matteo Croce <mcroce@microsoft.com>
> >
> > Allow to load the BPF instructons from a file descriptor,
> > other than a pointer.
> >
> > This is required by the Integrity Subsystem to validate the source of
> > the instructions.
> >
> > In bpf_attr replace 'insns', which is an u64, to a union containing also
> > the file descriptor as int.
> > A new BPF_F_LOAD_BY_FD flag tells bpf_prog_load() to load
> > the instructions from file descriptor and ignore the pointer.
> >
> > As BPF files usually are regular ELF files, start reading from the
> > current file position, so the userspace can skip the ELF header and jump
> > to the right section.
>
> That is not the case at all.
> Have you looked at amount of work libbpf is doing with elf file before
> raw instructions become suitable to be loaded by the kernel?

I see now what bpf_object__relocate() and all the *reloc* functions
do, so it can't be done this way, I see.

A malicious BPF file can be as bad as a malicious binary. Let's say I
want to assert code integrity for BPF files, what could be a viable
option?
Perhaps a signature in the object file as we do with modules?

Regards,
--
per aspera ad upstream

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-16 20:49    [W:0.053 / U:3.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site