Re: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/3] bpf: freeze a task cgroup from bpf

[Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 5:32 PM Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:20:45PM +0100, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks yes, I would expect freeze to behave like signal, and if one
> > wants to block immediately there is the LSM override return. The
> > selftest attached tries to do exactly that.
>
> Are you refering to this part:
>
>         int BPF_PROG(lsm_freeze_cgroup, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size)
>                 ...
>                 ret = bpf_task_freeze_cgroup(task, 1);
>                 if (!ret) {
>                         ret = -EPERM;
>                         /* reset for next call */
> ?

Yes.

>
> > Could be security signals, reading sensitive files or related to any
> > operation management, for X reasons this user session should be freezed
> > or killed.
>
> What can be done with a frozen cgroup after anything of that happens?
> Anything besides killing anyway?

Some users would like to inspect.


> Killing of an offending process could be caught by its supervisor (like
> container runtime or systemd) and propagated accordingly to the whole
> cgroup.

Most bpf technologies do not run as a supervisor.

> > The kill is an effective defense against fork-bombs as an example.
>
> There are several ways how to prevent fork-bombs in kernel already, it
> looks like a contrived example.

I doubt if they are as effective, flexible and reflect today's workflow
as the cgroup way.

Thanks