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,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 3/8] bpf: lsm: provide attachment points for BPF LSM programs
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 18:25:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200221022537.wbmhdfkdbfvw2pww@ast-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200220175250.10795-4-kpsingh@chromium.org>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 06:52:45PM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>
> The BPF LSM programs are implemented as fexit trampolines to avoid the
> overhead of retpolines. These programs cannot be attached to security_*
> wrappers as there are quite a few security_* functions that do more than
> just calling the LSM callbacks.
>
> This was discussed on the lists in:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200123152440.28956-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/T/#m068becce588a0cdf01913f368a97aea4c62d8266
>
> Adding a NOP callback after all the static LSM callbacks are called has
> the following benefits:
>
> - The BPF programs run at the right stage of the security_* wrappers.
> - They run after all the static LSM hooks allowed the operation,
> therefore cannot allow an action that was already denied.
>
> There are some hooks which do not call call_int_hooks or
> call_void_hooks. It's not possible to call the bpf_lsm_* functions
> without checking if there is BPF LSM program attached to these hooks.
> This is added further in a subsequent patch. For now, these hooks are
> marked as NO_BPF (i.e. attachment of BPF programs is not possible).
the commit log doesn't match the code.
> +
> +/* For every LSM hook that allows attachment of BPF programs, declare a NOP
> + * function where a BPF program can be attached as an fexit trampoline.
> + */
> +#define LSM_HOOK(RET, NAME, ...) LSM_HOOK_##RET(NAME, __VA_ARGS__)
> +#define LSM_HOOK_int(NAME, ...) noinline int bpf_lsm_##NAME(__VA_ARGS__) \
Did you check generated asm?
I think I saw cases when gcc ignored 'noinline' when function is defined in the
same file and still performed inlining while keeping the function body.
To be safe I think __weak is necessary. That will guarantee noinline.
And please reduce your cc next time. It's way too long.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-21 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ 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
2020-02-20 23:49 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-21 11:44 ` KP Singh
2020-02-21 18:23 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-22 4:22 ` Kees Cook
2020-02-23 22:08 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-02-24 16:32 ` Casey Schaufler
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
2020-02-24 16:09 ` Casey Schaufler
2020-02-24 17:23 ` KP Singh
2020-02-21 2:25 ` Alexei Starovoitov [this message]
2020-02-21 11:47 ` 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:
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=20200221022537.wbmhdfkdbfvw2pww@ast-mbp \
--to=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--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 \
/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).