From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>
Cc: "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>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:23:46 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWAYyx_5Axyeqiz6tQa0kqTeNTuHRrERcM2G8ROhaphVw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57C5EAA3.5090901@digikod.net>
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.
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-30 20:24 UTC|newest]
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 [this message]
2016-08-30 20:33 ` Mickaël Salaün
2016-08-30 20:55 ` Alexei Starovoitov
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=CALCETrWAYyx_5Axyeqiz6tQa0kqTeNTuHRrERcM2G8ROhaphVw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=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=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
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).