Em Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:55:10PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov escreveu:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:49:09AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Only root can attach eBPF programs to tracepoints.
> > Would be really good if we could have a more restricted program type to
> > attach to tracepoints, one that would be able to run only in the context
> > of their threads and access only the pointers in the tracepoints, that
> > way the 'perf trace' augmented syscalls code would be usable for
> > non-root users just like the other 'perf' commands are, allowing us to,
> > as with root, to copy the pointer arguments, like:
> I don't think there is a clean way of doing non-root with tracepoints or
> syscalls.
> The kernel side would need to start filtering the progs.
> Like current uid == uid of loaded prog. But then there are tail_calls.
Yeah, that program would run only for threads owned by the prog owner.
> they would need to be disabled.
I think if that is not possible, then would be an acceptable limitation
in a first implementation. I.e. my understanding is that eBPF started
with some limited scope, then as it goes maturing, more features were
added as its security/performance implications were understood.
> tracepoints args can be pointers. _all_ of them in the kernel would need to
> be annotated to make sure pointers don't leak into unpriv user space.
> and so on and so forth.
Yes, I thought about heavily restricting them, i.e. points would be
allowed just for some very special cases, like the arguments to
raw_syscalls.sys_{sys_enter,sys_exit}, as a starting point.
> I think better way forward would be to introduce something in the middle.
> Between root and unpriv. Something that tracing bpf progs can use.
> May be new capability?
Well, that would be interesting too, I think, would make go a bit
forward, for a class of applications where trusting the tracer is
possible.
- Arnaldo
