BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Security Module list 
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] bpf: lsm: provide attachment points for BPF LSM programs
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 08:32:10 -0800
Message-ID: <c5c67ece-e5c1-9e8f-3a2b-60d8d002c894@schaufler-ca.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200223220833.wdhonzvven7payaw@ast-mbp>

On 2/23/2020 2:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 08:22:59PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> If I'm understanding this correctly, there are two issues:
>> 1- BPF needs to be run last due to fexit trampolines (?)
> no.
> The placement of nop call can be anywhere.
> BPF trampoline is automagically converting nop call into a sequence
> of directly invoked BPF programs.
> No link list traversals and no indirect calls in run-time.

Then why the insistence that it be last?

>> 2- BPF hooks don't know what may be attached at any given time, so
>>    ALL LSM hooks need to be universally hooked. THIS turns out to create
>>    a measurable performance problem in that the cost of the indirect call
>>    on the (mostly/usually) empty BPF policy is too high.
> also no.

Um, then why not use the infrastructure as is?

>> So, trying to avoid the indirect calls is, as you say, an optimization,
>> but it might be a needed one due to the other limitations.
> I'm convinced that avoiding the cost of retpoline in critical path is a
> requirement for any new infrastructure in the kernel.

Sorry, I haven't gotten that memo.

> Not only for security, but for any new infra.

The LSM infrastructure ain't new.

> Networking stack converted all such places to conditional calls.
> In BPF land we converted indirect calls to direct jumps and direct calls.
> It took two years to do so. Adding new indirect calls is not an option.
> I'm eagerly waiting for Peter's static_call patches to land to convert
> a lot more indirect calls. May be existing LSMs will take advantage
> of static_call patches too, but static_call is not an option for BPF.
> That's why we introduced BPF trampoline in the last kernel release.

Sorry, but I don't see how BPF is so overwhelmingly special.

>> b) Would there actually be a global benefit to using the static keys
>>    optimization for other LSMs?
> Yes. Just compiling with CONFIG_SECURITY adds "if (hlist_empty)" check
> for every hook.

Err, no, it doesn't. It does an hlish_for_each_entry(), which
may be the equivalent on an empty list, but let's not go around
spreading misinformation.

>  Some of those hooks are in critical path. This load+cmp
> can be avoided with static_key optimization. I think it's worth doing.

I admit to being unfamiliar with the static_key implementation,
but if it would work for a list of hooks rather than a singe hook,
I'm all ears.

>> If static keys are justified for KRSI
> I really like that KRSI costs absolutely zero when it's not enabled.

And I dislike that there's security module specific code in security.c,
security.h and/or lsm_hooks.h. KRSI *is not that special*.

> Attaching BPF prog to one hook preserves zero cost for all other hooks.
> And when one hook is BPF powered it's using direct call instead of
> super expensive retpoline.

I'm not objecting to the good it does for KRSI.
I am *strongly* objecting to special casing KRSI.

> Overall this patch set looks good to me. There was a minor issue with prog
> accounting. I expect only that bit to be fixed in v5.

  reply index

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-20 17:52 [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/8] MAC and Audit policy using eBPF (KRSI) KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/8] bpf: Introduce BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/8] security: Refactor declaration of LSM hooks KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] bpf: lsm: provide attachment points for BPF LSM programs KP Singh
2020-02-21  2:25   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-21 11:47     ` KP Singh
     [not found]   ` <0ef26943-9619-3736-4452-fec536a8d169@schaufler-ca.com>
2020-02-21 11:44     ` KP Singh
2020-02-21 18:23       ` Casey Schaufler
     [not found]     ` <202002211946.A23A987@keescook>
2020-02-23 22:08       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-24 16:32         ` Casey Schaufler [this message]
2020-02-24 17:13           ` KP Singh
2020-02-24 18:45             ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-24 21:41               ` Kees Cook
2020-02-24 22:29                 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-25  5:41                 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-25 15:31                   ` Kees Cook
2020-02-25 19:31                   ` KP Singh
2020-02-26  0:30                   ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-26  5:15                     ` KP Singh
2020-02-26 15:35                       ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-25 19:29                 ` KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 4/8] bpf: lsm: Add support for enabling/disabling BPF hooks KP Singh
2020-02-21 18:57   ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-21 19:11     ` James Morris
2020-02-22  4:26   ` Kees Cook
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 5/8] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution KP Singh
2020-02-21  2:17   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-21 12:02     ` KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 6/8] tools/libbpf: Add support for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM KP Singh
2020-02-25  6:45   ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 7/8] bpf: lsm: Add selftests " KP Singh
2020-02-20 17:52 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 8/8] bpf: lsm: Add Documentation KP Singh
2020-02-21 19:19 ` [PATCH bpf-next v4 0/8] MAC and Audit policy using eBPF (KRSI) Casey Schaufler
2020-02-21 19:41   ` KP Singh
2020-02-21 22:31     ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-21 23:09       ` KP Singh
2020-02-21 23:49         ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-22  0:22       ` Kees Cook
2020-02-22  1:04         ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-22  3:36           ` Kees Cook
2020-02-27 18:40 ` Dr. Greg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c5c67ece-e5c1-9e8f-3a2b-60d8d002c894@schaufler-ca.com \
    --to=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

BPF Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/0 bpf/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 bpf bpf/ https://lore.kernel.org/bpf \
	public-inbox-index bpf

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git