LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	"kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
	Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:55:55 -0700
Message-ID: <20160830205552.GB71063@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57C5ED9B.3040303@digikod.net>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:33:31PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30/08/2016 22:23, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 30/08/2016 20:55, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 28/08/2016 10:13, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 27, 2016 11:14 PM, "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 27/08/2016 22:43, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 09:35:14PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2016 20:06, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> As said above, Landlock will not run an eBPF programs when not strictly
> >>>>>>>>>> needed. Attaching to a cgroup will have the same performance impact as
> >>>>>>>>>> attaching to a process hierarchy.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Having a prog per cgroup per lsm_hook is the only scalable way I
> >>>>>>>>> could come up with. If you see another way, please propose.
> >>>>>>>>> current->seccomp.landlock_prog is not the answer.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hum, I don't see the difference from a performance point of view between
> >>>>>>>> a cgroup-based or a process hierarchy-based system.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe a better option should be to use an array of pointers with N
> >>>>>>>> entries, one for each supported hook, instead of a unique pointer list?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> yes, clearly array dereference is faster than link list walk.
> >>>>>>> Now the question is where to keep this prog_array[num_lsm_hooks] ?
> >>>>>>> Since we cannot keep it inside task_struct, we have to allocate it.
> >>>>>>> Every time the task is creted then. What to do on the fork? That
> >>>>>>> will require changes all over. Then the obvious optimization would be
> >>>>>>> to share this allocated array of prog pointers across multiple tasks...
> >>>>>>> and little by little this new facility will look like cgroup.
> >>>>>>> Hence the suggestion to put this array into cgroup from the start.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I see your point :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Anyway, being able to attach an LSM hook program to a cgroup thanks to
> >>>>>>>> the new BPF_PROG_ATTACH seems a good idea (while keeping the possibility
> >>>>>>>> to use a process hierarchy). The downside will be to handle an LSM hook
> >>>>>>>> program which is not triggered by a seccomp-filter, but this should be
> >>>>>>>> needed anyway to handle interruptions.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> what do you mean 'not triggered by seccomp' ?
> >>>>>>> You're not suggesting that this lsm has to enable seccomp to be functional?
> >>>>>>> imo that's non starter due to overhead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, for now, it is triggered by a new seccomp filter return value
> >>>>>> RET_LANDLOCK, which can take a 16-bit value called cookie. This must not
> >>>>>> be needed but could be useful to bind a seccomp filter security policy
> >>>>>> with a Landlock one. Waiting for Kees's point of view…
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not Kees, but I'd be okay with that.  I still think that doing
> >>>>> this by process hierarchy a la seccomp will be easier to use and to
> >>>>> understand (which is quite important for this kind of work) than doing
> >>>>> it by cgroup.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A feature I've wanted to add for a while is to have an fd that
> >>>>> represents a seccomp layer, the idea being that you would set up your
> >>>>> seccomp layer (with syscall filter, landlock hooks, etc) and then you
> >>>>> would have a syscall to install that layer.  Then an unprivileged
> >>>>> sandbox manager could set up its layer and still be able to inject new
> >>>>> processes into it later on, no cgroups needed.
> >>>>
> >>>> A nice thing I didn't highlight about Landlock is that a process can
> >>>> prepare a layer of rules (arraymap of handles + Landlock programs) and
> >>>> pass the file descriptors of the Landlock programs to another process.
> >>>> This process could then apply this programs to get sandboxed. However,
> >>>> for now, because a Landlock program is only triggered by a seccomp
> >>>> filter (which do not follow the Landlock programs as a FD), they will be
> >>>> useless.
> >>>>
> >>>> The FD referring to an arraymap of handles can also be used to update a
> >>>> map and change the behavior of a Landlock program. A master process can
> >>>> then add or remove restrictions to another process hierarchy on the fly.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe this could be extended a little bit.  The fd could hold the
> >>> seccomp filter *and* the LSM hook filters.  FMODE_EXECUTE could give
> >>> the ability to install it and FMODE_WRITE could give the ability to
> >>> modify it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This is interesting! It should be possible to append the seccomp stack
> >> of a source process to the seccomp stack of the target process when a
> >> Landlock program is passed and then activated through seccomp(2).
> >>
> >> For the FMODE_EXECUTE/FMODE_WRITE, are you suggesting to manage
> >> permission of the eBPF program FD in a specific way?
> >>
> > 
> > This wouldn't be an eBPF program FD -- it would be an FD encapsulating
> > an entire configuration including seccomp BPF program, whatever
> > landlock stuff is associated, and eventual seccomp monitor
> > configuration (once I write that code), etc.
> > 
> > You wouldn't say "attach this process's seccomp stack to me" -- you'd
> > say "attach this seccomp layer to me".
> > 
> > A decision that we'd have to make would be whether the FD links to the
> > parent layer or whether it can be attached without regard to what the
> > parent layer is.
> 
> OK, I like that, but I think it could be done on a second time. :)

I don't. Single FD that is a collection of objects seems an odd abstraction
to me. I also don't see what it actually solves.
I think lsm and seccomp should be orthogonal and not tied into each other.

  reply index

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-25 10:32 [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 01/10] landlock: Add Kconfig Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 02/10] bpf: Move u64_to_ptr() to BPF headers and inline it Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 03/10] bpf,landlock: Add a new arraymap type to deal with (Landlock) handles Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 04/10] seccomp: Split put_seccomp_filter() with put_seccomp() Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 05/10] seccomp: Handle Landlock Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 06/10] landlock: Add LSM hooks Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 18:56   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:10     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:18       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:27         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 07/10] landlock: Add errno check Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:13   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 08/10] landlock: Handle file system comparisons Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:12   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 14:10     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 14:57       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 13:45         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:09   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 14:44     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 12:55       ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-26 14:20       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-26 15:50         ` Tejun Heo
2016-08-26  2:14   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-26 15:10     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-26 23:05       ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27  7:30         ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 18:11           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-28  8:14             ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 14:06         ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:06           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 19:35             ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 20:43               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 21:14                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-28  8:13                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-28  9:42                     ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 18:55                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:20                         ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:23                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 20:33                             ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:55                               ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2016-08-30 21:45                                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-31  1:36                                   ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-31  3:29                                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 14:19         ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (netfilter match) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:32           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 14:34         ` [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 18:19           ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 19:55             ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 20:56               ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-08-27 21:18                 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 10:32 ` [RFC v2 10/10] samples/landlock: Add sandbox example Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-25 11:05 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-25 13:57   ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27  7:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-27 15:10   ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-27 15:21     ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing (cgroup delegation) Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 16:06 ` [RFC v2 00/10] Landlock LSM: Unprivileged sandboxing Andy Lutomirski
2016-08-30 19:51   ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 19:55     ` Andy Lutomirski
2016-09-15  9:19 ` Pavel Machek
2016-09-20 17:08   ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-09-24  7:45     ` Pavel Machek
2016-10-03 22:56     ` Kees Cook
2016-10-05 20:30       ` Mickaël Salaün

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160830205552.GB71063@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=daniel@zonque.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mic@digikod.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sargun@sargun.me \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

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

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8 lkml/git/8.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9 lkml/git/9.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/10 lkml/git/10.git

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

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


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