From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
To: KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"Brendan Jackman" <jackmanb@google.com>,
"Florent Revest" <revest@google.com>,
"Thomas Garnier" <thgarnie@google.com>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
"James Morris" <jmorris@namei.org>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Thomas Garnier" <thgarnie@chromium.org>,
"Michael Halcrow" <mhalcrow@google.com>,
"Paul Turner" <pjt@google.com>,
"Brendan Gregg" <brendan.d.gregg@gmail.com>,
"Jann Horn" <jannh@google.com>,
"Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@google.com>,
"Christian Brauner" <christian@brauner.io>,
"Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>,
"Florent Revest" <revest@chromium.org>,
"Brendan Jackman" <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
"Mauro Carvalho Chehab" <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/10] bpf: lsm: Add mutable hooks list for the BPF LSM
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:12:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200211031208.e6osrcathampoog7@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200123152440.28956-5-kpsingh@chromium.org>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 07:24:34AM -0800, KP Singh wrote:
> +#define CALL_BPF_LSM_INT_HOOKS(FUNC, ...) ({ \
> + int _ret = 0; \
> + do { \
> + struct security_hook_list *P; \
> + int _idx; \
> + \
> + if (hlist_empty(&bpf_lsm_hook_heads.FUNC)) \
> + break; \
> + \
> + _idx = bpf_lsm_srcu_read_lock(); \
> + \
> + hlist_for_each_entry(P, \
> + &bpf_lsm_hook_heads.FUNC, list) { \
> + _ret = P->hook.FUNC(__VA_ARGS__); \
> + if (_ret && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_BPF_ENFORCE)) \
> + break; \
> + } \
> + bpf_lsm_srcu_read_unlock(_idx); \
> + } while (0); \
> + IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECURITY_BPF_ENFORCE) ? _ret : 0; \
> +})
This extra CONFIG_SECURITY_BPF_ENFORCE doesn't make sense to me.
Why do all the work for bpf-lsm and ignore return code? Such framework already
exists. For audit only case the user could have kprobed security_*() in
security/security.c and had access to exactly the same data. There is no need
in any of these patches if audit the only use case.
Obviously bpf-lsm has to be capable of making go/no-go decision, so
my preference is to drop this extra kconfig knob.
I think the agreement seen in earlier comments in this thread that the prefered
choice is to always have bpf-based lsm to be equivalent to LSM_ORDER_LAST. In
such case how about using bpf-trampoline fexit logic instead?
Pros:
- no changes to security/ directory
- no changes to call_int_hook() macro
- patches 4, 5, 6 no longer necessary
- when security is off all security_*() hooks do single
if (hlist_empty(&bpf_lsm_hook_heads.FUNC)) check.
With patch 4 there will two such checks. Tiny perf penalty.
With fexit approach there will be no extra check.
- fexit approach is fast even on kernels compiled with retpoline, since
its using direct calls
Cons:
- bpf trampoline so far is x86 only and arm64 support is wip
By plugging into fexit I'm proposing to let bpf-lsm prog type modify return
value. Currently bpf-fexit prog type has read-only access to it. Adding write
access is a straightforward verifier change. The bpf progs from patch 9 will
still look exactly the same way:
SEC("lsm/file_mprotect")
int BPF_PROG(mprotect_audit, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long reqprot, unsigned long prot) { ... }
The difference that libbpf will be finding btf_id of security_file_mprotect()
function and adding fexit trampoline to it instead of going via
security_list_options and its own lsm_hook_idx uapi. I think reusing existing
tracing facilities to attach and multiplex multiple programs is cleaner. More
code reuse. Unified testing of lsm and tracing, etc.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-11 3:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-23 15:24 [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/10] MAC and Audit policy using eBPF (KRSI) KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 01/10] bpf: btf: Add btf_type_by_name_kind KP Singh
2020-01-23 20:06 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-01-24 14:12 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 02/10] bpf: lsm: Add a skeleton and config options KP Singh
2020-02-10 23:52 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 12:45 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 03/10] bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF based LSM KP Singh
2020-02-10 23:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 12:44 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/10] bpf: lsm: Add mutable hooks list for the BPF LSM KP Singh
2020-01-23 17:03 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-23 17:59 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 19:09 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-23 22:24 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 23:50 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-24 1:25 ` KP Singh
2020-01-24 21:55 ` James Morris
2020-02-11 3:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-02-11 12:43 ` KP Singh
2020-02-11 17:58 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 18:44 ` BPF LSM and fexit [was: [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/10] bpf: lsm: Add mutable hooks list for the BPF LSM] Jann Horn
2020-02-11 19:09 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 19:36 ` Jann Horn
2020-02-11 20:10 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 20:33 ` Jann Horn
2020-02-11 21:32 ` Jann Horn
2020-02-11 21:38 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-11 23:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-12 0:09 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-02-12 2:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-12 13:27 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-02-12 16:04 ` KP Singh
2020-02-12 15:52 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-12 16:26 ` KP Singh
2020-02-12 18:59 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 05/10] bpf: lsm: BTF API for LSM hooks KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 06/10] bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 07/10] bpf: lsm: Make the allocated callback RO+X KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 08/10] tools/libbpf: Add support for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM KP Singh
2020-01-23 18:00 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2020-01-24 14:16 ` KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 09/10] bpf: lsm: Add selftests " KP Singh
2020-01-23 15:24 ` [PATCH bpf-next v3 10/10] bpf: lsm: Add Documentation KP Singh
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=20200211031208.e6osrcathampoog7@ast-mbp \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brendan.d.gregg@gmail.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jackmanb@chromium.org \
--cc=jackmanb@google.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab+samsung@kernel.org \
--cc=mhalcrow@google.com \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=mjg59@google.com \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=revest@chromium.org \
--cc=revest@google.com \
--cc=serge@hallyn.com \
--cc=thgarnie@chromium.org \
--cc=thgarnie@google.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).