From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3727C28CBC for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 07:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A049C24953 for ; Sat, 9 May 2020 07:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726797AbgEIHl6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 03:41:58 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:28080 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726120AbgEIHl6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 May 2020 03:41:58 -0400 IronPort-SDR: 0jsez6Tw+9xQ/hiD4+clKTQDkvFwNpVXBtm/8LQ6P+6Qwx8IGeQt1rfZDAWWdq3/7TEPKhEDk2 hVhULOVon1sQ== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga007.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.52]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 May 2020 00:41:57 -0700 IronPort-SDR: eOZ46vkZPJb/4AmwQfDDWV/ecRVeDAad3W8sg+zvXA4aSFEF4DXCUI0uo/ISzDzdnyjM4m3qZJ JwNuczPSgGVQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,370,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="250674683" Received: from waikeung-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.255.28.12]) ([10.255.28.12]) by fmsmga007.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 May 2020 00:41:56 -0700 Subject: Re: bprm_count and stack_mprotect error when testing BPF LSM on v5.7-rc3 To: KP Singh , Andrii Nakryiko Cc: "bpf@vger.kernel.org" References: <3ab505db-9e04-366b-d602-6b2935739f54@intel.com> From: Ma Xinjian Message-ID: <65526c26-c94b-d5dd-7143-b1af7071dbf9@intel.com> Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 15:41:22 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On 5/8/20 12:24 AM, KP Singh wrote: > Adding the list back after an HTML/text mess up. > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:23 PM KP Singh wrote: >> Can you check if you have the following fix: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200430155240.68748-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/ >> >> The test fails because the "bpf" is not in the LSM string which means the file_mprotect hook does not return a -EPERM error. >> >> - KP I have rebuilt kernel with this fix. root@lkp-skl-d01 ~# grep "ENOPARAM" /usr/src/perf_selftests-x86_64-rhel-7.6-kselftests-bpf-lsm-2-79dede78c0573618e3137d3d8cbf78c84e25fabd/include/linux/lsm_hook_defs.h LSM_HOOK(int, -ENOPARAM, fs_context_parse_param, struct fs_context *fc, But still the same issue, and error message are exactly the same. Anything else I can check in my env? Ma >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:16 PM Andrii Nakryiko wrote: >>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:21 PM Ma Xinjian wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> When I test bpf lsm with (/test_progs -vv -t test_lsm ), failed with >>>> below issue: >>>> >>>> root@lkp-skl-d01 >>>> /usr/src/perf_selftests-x86_64-rhel-7.6-kselftests-bpf-lsm-2-6a8b55ed4056ea5559ebe4f6a4b247f627870d4c/tools/testing/selftests/bpf# >>>> ./test_progs -vv -t test_lsm >>>> >>>> libbpf: loading object 'lsm' from buffer >>>> libbpf: section(1) .strtab, size 306, link 0, flags 0, type=3 >>>> libbpf: skip section(1) .strtab >>>> libbpf: section(2) .text, size 0, link 0, flags 6, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(2) .text >>>> libbpf: section(3) lsm/file_mprotect, size 192, link 0, flags 6, type=1 >>>> libbpf: found program lsm/file_mprotect >>>> libbpf: section(4) .rellsm/file_mprotect, size 32, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: section(5) lsm/bprm_committed_creds, size 104, link 0, flags 6, >>>> type=1 >>>> libbpf: found program lsm/bprm_committed_creds >>>> libbpf: section(6) .rellsm/bprm_committed_creds, size 32, link 25, flags >>>> 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: section(7) license, size 4, link 0, flags 3, type=1 >>>> libbpf: license of lsm is GPL >>>> libbpf: section(8) .bss, size 12, link 0, flags 3, type=8 >>>> libbpf: section(9) .debug_loc, size 383, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(9) .debug_loc >>>> libbpf: section(10) .rel.debug_loc, size 112, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.debug_loc(10) for section(9) >>>> libbpf: section(11) .debug_abbrev, size 901, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(11) .debug_abbrev >>>> libbpf: section(12) .debug_info, size 237441, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(12) .debug_info >>>> libbpf: section(13) .rel.debug_info, size 112, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.debug_info(13) for section(12) >>>> libbpf: section(14) .debug_ranges, size 96, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(14) .debug_ranges >>>> libbpf: section(15) .rel.debug_ranges, size 128, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.debug_ranges(15) for section(14) >>>> libbpf: section(16) .debug_str, size 142395, link 0, flags 30, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(16) .debug_str >>>> libbpf: section(17) .BTF, size 5634, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: section(18) .rel.BTF, size 64, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.BTF(18) for section(17) >>>> libbpf: section(19) .BTF.ext, size 484, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: section(20) .rel.BTF.ext, size 416, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.BTF.ext(20) for section(19) >>>> libbpf: section(21) .debug_frame, size 64, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(21) .debug_frame >>>> libbpf: section(22) .rel.debug_frame, size 32, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.debug_frame(22) for section(21) >>>> libbpf: section(23) .debug_line, size 227, link 0, flags 0, type=1 >>>> libbpf: skip section(23) .debug_line >>>> libbpf: section(24) .rel.debug_line, size 32, link 25, flags 0, type=9 >>>> libbpf: skip relo .rel.debug_line(24) for section(23) >>>> libbpf: section(25) .symtab, size 288, link 1, flags 0, type=2 >>>> libbpf: looking for externs among 12 symbols... >>>> libbpf: collected 0 externs total >>>> libbpf: map 'lsm.bss' (global data): at sec_idx 8, offset 0, flags 400. >>>> libbpf: map 0 is "lsm.bss" >>>> libbpf: collecting relocating info for: 'lsm/file_mprotect' >>>> libbpf: relo for shdr 8, symb 8, value 0, type 1, bind 1, name 232 >>>> ('monitored_pid'), insn 12 >>>> libbpf: found data map 0 (lsm.bss, sec 8, off 0) for insn 12 >>>> libbpf: relo for shdr 8, symb 9, value 4, type 1, bind 1, name 34 >>>> ('mprotect_count'), insn 17 >>>> libbpf: found data map 0 (lsm.bss, sec 8, off 0) for insn 17 >>>> libbpf: collecting relocating info for: 'lsm/bprm_committed_creds' >>>> libbpf: relo for shdr 8, symb 8, value 0, type 1, bind 1, name 232 >>>> ('monitored_pid'), insn 1 >>>> libbpf: found data map 0 (lsm.bss, sec 8, off 0) for insn 1 >>>> libbpf: relo for shdr 8, symb 7, value 8, type 1, bind 1, name 49 >>>> ('bprm_count'), insn 6 >>>> libbpf: found data map 0 (lsm.bss, sec 8, off 0) for insn 6 >>>> libbpf: loading kernel BTF '/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux': 0 >>>> libbpf: created map lsm.bss: fd=4 >>>> libbpf: loading kernel BTF '/sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux': 0 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': performing 4 CO-RE offset relocs >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #0: kind 0, spec is [6] >>>> vm_area_struct + 0:6 => 64.0 @ &x[0].vm_mm >>>> libbpf: [6] vm_area_struct: found candidate [329] vm_area_struct >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #0: matching candidate #0 >>>> vm_area_struct against spec [329] vm_area_struct + 0:6 => 64.0 @ >>>> &x[0].vm_mm: 1 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #0: patched insn #5 (LDX/ST/STX) >>>> off 64 -> 64 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #1: kind 0, spec is [32] >>>> mm_struct + 0:0:35 => 304.0 @ &x[0].start_stack >>>> libbpf: [32] mm_struct: found candidate [308] mm_struct >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #1: matching candidate #0 >>>> mm_struct against spec [308] mm_struct + 0:0:35 => 304.0 @ >>>> &x[0].start_stack: 1 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #1: patched insn #7 (LDX/ST/STX) >>>> off 304 -> 304 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #2: kind 0, spec is [6] >>>> vm_area_struct + 0:0 => 0.0 @ &x[0].vm_start >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #2: matching candidate #0 >>>> vm_area_struct against spec [329] vm_area_struct + 0:0 => 0.0 @ >>>> &x[0].vm_start: 1 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #2: patched insn #8 (LDX/ST/STX) >>>> off 0 -> 0 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #3: kind 0, spec is [6] >>>> vm_area_struct + 0:1 => 8.0 @ &x[0].vm_end >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #3: matching candidate #0 >>>> vm_area_struct against spec [329] vm_area_struct + 0:1 => 8.0 @ >>>> &x[0].vm_end: 1 >>>> libbpf: prog 'lsm/file_mprotect': relo #3: patched insn #10 (LDX/ST/STX) >>>> off 8 -> 8 >>>> test_test_lsm:PASS:skel_load 0 nsec >>>> test_test_lsm:PASS:attach 0 nsec >>>> test_test_lsm:PASS:exec_cmd 0 nsec >>>> test_test_lsm:FAIL:bprm_count bprm_count = 0 >>>> test_test_lsm:FAIL:stack_mprotect want err=EPERM, got 0 >>>> #70 test_lsm:FAIL >>>> Summary: 0/0 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED >>>> >>>> >>>> kconfig: >>>> >>>> CONFIG_BPF_LSM=y >>>> >>>> CONFIG_LSM="lockdown,yama,loadpin,safesetid,integrity,selinux,smack,tomoyo,apparmor" >>>> >>>> besides: >>>> >>>> when I add bpf to CONFIG_LSM, then boot failed. >>>> >>>> boot error: >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> Cannot determine cgroup we are running in: No data available >>>> Failed to allocate manager object: No data available >>>> [!!!!!!] Failed to allocate manager object, freezing. >>>> Freezing execution. >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> seems bpf in CONFIG_LSM and CONFIG_BPF_LSM conflict. >>>> >>>> >>>> clang version: v11.0.0 >>>> >>>> commit: 54b35c066417d4856e9d53313f7e98b354274584 >>>> >>>> # pahole --version >>>> v1.17 >>>> >>> It might be due to bug in default return value of one of the >>> functions, which KP recently fixed. But just to be sure, KP, could you >>> please take a look? >>> >>>> -- >>>> Best Regards. >>>> Ma Xinjian >>>> -- Best Regards. Ma Xinjian