On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:30:08PM -0800, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 01/21, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:57:44PM -0800, sdf@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > On 01/21, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 05:22:41PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > BPF rewrites from 111 to 111, but it still should mark the port as
> > > > > "changed".
> > > > > We also verify that if port isn't touched by BPF, it's still
> > prohibited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c | 88
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c | 36 ++++++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 124 insertions(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644
> > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..840a04ac9042
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bind_perm.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > +#include <test_progs.h>
> > > > > +#include "bind_perm.skel.h"
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > > > > +#include <sys/socket.h>
> > > > > +#include <sys/capability.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static int duration;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void try_bind(int port, int expected_errno)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct sockaddr_in sin = {};
> > > > > + int fd = -1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
> > > > > + if (CHECK(fd < 0, "fd", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto close_socket;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + sin.sin_family = AF_INET;
> > > > > + sin.sin_port = htons(port);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + errno = 0;
> > > > > + bind(fd, (struct sockaddr *)&sin, sizeof(sin));
> > > > > + CHECK(errno != expected_errno, "bind", "errno %d, expected %d",
> > > > > + errno, expected_errno);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +close_socket:
> > > > > + if (fd >= 0)
> > > > > + close(fd);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void cap_net_bind_service(cap_flag_value_t flag)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + const cap_value_t cap_net_bind_service = CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE;
> > > > > + cap_t caps;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + caps = cap_get_proc();
> > > > > + if (CHECK(!caps, "cap_get_proc", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto free_caps;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (CHECK(cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1,
> > &cap_net_bind_service,
> > > > > + CAP_CLEAR),
> > > > > + "cap_set_flag", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto free_caps;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (CHECK(cap_set_flag(caps, CAP_EFFECTIVE, 1,
> > &cap_net_bind_service,
> > > > > + CAP_CLEAR),
> > > > > + "cap_set_flag", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto free_caps;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (CHECK(cap_set_proc(caps), "cap_set_proc", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto free_caps;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +free_caps:
> > > > > + if (CHECK(cap_free(caps), "cap_free", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto free_caps;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +void test_bind_perm(void)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct bind_perm *skel;
> > > > > + int cgroup_fd;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/bind_perm");
> > > > > + if (CHECK(cgroup_fd < 0, "cg-join", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + skel = bind_perm__open_and_load();
> > > > > + if (CHECK(!skel, "skel-load", "errno %d", errno))
> > > > > + goto close_cgroup_fd;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + skel->links.bind_v4_prog =
> > > > bpf_program__attach_cgroup(skel->progs.bind_v4_prog, cgroup_fd);
> > > > > + if (CHECK(IS_ERR(skel->links.bind_v4_prog),
> > > > > + "cg-attach", "bind4 %ld",
> > > > > + PTR_ERR(skel->links.bind_v4_prog)))
> > > > > + goto close_skeleton;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + cap_net_bind_service(CAP_CLEAR);
> > > > > + try_bind(110, EACCES);
> > > > > + try_bind(111, 0);
> > > > > + cap_net_bind_service(CAP_SET);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +close_skeleton:
> > > > > + bind_perm__destroy(skel);
> > > > > +close_cgroup_fd:
> > > > > + close(cgroup_fd);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..2194587ec806
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bind_perm.c
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > > > +
> > > > > +#include <linux/stddef.h>
> > > > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > > > > +#include <sys/types.h>
> > > > > +#include <sys/socket.h>
> > > > > +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> > > > > +#include <bpf/bpf_endian.h>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +SEC("cgroup/bind4")
> > > > > +int bind_v4_prog(struct bpf_sock_addr *ctx)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct bpf_sock *sk;
> > > > > + __u32 user_ip4;
> > > > > + __u16 user_port;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + sk = ctx->sk;
> > > > > + if (!sk)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (sk->family != AF_INET)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (ctx->type != SOCK_STREAM)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* Rewriting to the same value should still cause
> > > > > + * permission check to be bypassed.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (ctx->user_port == bpf_htons(111))
> > > > > + ctx->user_port = bpf_htons(111);
> > > > iiuc, this overwrite is essentially the way to ensure the bind
> > > > will succeed (override CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE in this particular case?).
> > > Correct. The alternative might be to export ignore_perm_check
> > > via bpf_sock_addr and make it explicit.
> > An explicit field is one option.
>
> > or a different return value (e.g. BPF_PROG_CGROUP_INET_EGRESS_RUN_ARRAY).
>
> > Not sure which one (including the one in the current patch) is better
> > at this point.
> Same. My reasoning was: if the BPF program rewrites the port, it knows
> what it's doing, so it doesn't seem like adding another explicit
> signal makes sense. So I decided to go without external api change.
>
> > Also, from patch 1, if one cgrp bpf prog says no-perm-check,
> > it does not matter what the latter cgrp bpf progs have to say?
> Right, it doesn't matter. But I think it's fine: if the latter
> one rewrites the (previously rewritten) address to something
> new, it still wants that address to be bound to, right?
>
> If some program returns EPERM, it also doesn't matter.
>
> > > > It seems to be okay if we consider most of the use cases is rewriting
> > > > to a different port.
> > >
> > > > However, it is quite un-intuitive to the bpf prog to overwrite with
> > > > the same user_port just to ensure this port can be binded successfully
> > > > later.
> > > I'm testing a corner case here when the address is rewritten to the same
> > > value, but the intention is to rewrite X to Y < 1024.
> > It is a legit corner case though.
>
> > Also, is it possible that the compiler may optimize this
> > same-value-assignment out?
> Yeah, it's a legit case, that's why I tested it. Good point on
> optimizing (can be "healed" with volatile?),
hmm... It is too fragile.
> but it should only matter if
> the program is installed to bypass the permission checks for some ports
> (as it does in this selftest). As you mention below, it's not clear what's
> the 'default' use-case is. Is it rewriting to a different port or just
> bypassing the cap_net_bind_service for some ports? Feels like rewriting
> to a different address/port was the reason the hooks were added,
> so I was targeting this one.
It sounds like having a bpf to bypass permission only without changing
the port is not the target but more like a by-product of this change.
How about only bypass cap_net_bind_service when bpf did change the
address/port. Will it become too slow for bind?
>
> > > > Is user_port the only case? How about other fields in bpf_sock_addr?
> > > Good question. For our use case only the port matters because
> > > we rewrite both port and address (and never only address).
> > >
> > > It does feel like it should also work when BPF rewrites address only
> > > (and port happens to be in the privileged range). I guess I can
> > > apply the same logic to the user_ip4 and user_ip6?
> > My concern is having more cases that need to overwrite with the same
> > value.
> > Then it may make a stronger case to use return value or an explicit field.
> Tried to add some reasoning in the comment above. Let me know what's
> your preference is.
