Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1547457

Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 08:59:53PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 12/24/2016 03:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >BPF digests are intended to be used to avoid reloading programs that
>> >are already loaded.  For use cases (CRIU?) where untrusted programs
>> >are involved, intentional hash collisions could cause the wrong BPF
>> >program to execute.  Additionally, if BPF digests are ever used
>> >in-kernel to skip verification, a hash collision could give privilege
>> >escalation directly.
>>
>> Just for the record, digests will never ever be used to skip the
>> verification step, so I don't know why this idea even comes up
>> here (?) or is part of the changelog? As this will never be done
>> anyway, rather drop that part so we can avoid confusion on this?
>
> +1 to what Daniel said above.
>
> For the others let me explain what this patch set is actually
> trying to accomplish.

The patch:

a) cleans up the code and

b) uses a cryptographic hash that is actually believed to satisfy the
definition of a cryptographic hash.

There's no excuse for not doing b.

> and I have an obvious NACK for bpf related patches 3,4,5,6.

Did you *read* the ones that were pure cleanups?

>
> sha1 is 20 bytes which is already a bit long to print and copy paste by humans.
> whereas 4 byte jhash is a bit too short, since collisions are not that rare
> and may lead to incorrect assumptions from the users that develop the programs.
> I would prefer something in 6-10 byte range that prevents collisions most of
> the time and short to print as hex, but I don't know of anything like this
> in the existing kernel and inventing bpf specific hash is not great.
> Another requirement for debugging (and prog_digest) that user space
> should be able to produce the same hash without asking kernel, so
> sha1 fits that as well, since it's well known and easy to put into library.

Then truncate them in user space.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2016-12-24 03:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf  digests Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> - 2016-12-24 21:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf  digests Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 02:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH 4.10 3/6] bpf: Use SHA256 instead of SHA1 for bpf digests Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-12-27 03:10 +0100

csiph-web