Linux-Security-Module Archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
	 keescook@chromium.org, casey@schaufler-ca.com, song@kernel.org,
	 daniel@iogearbox.net, ast@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
	andrii@kernel.org,  Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] bpf: Only enable BPF LSM hooks when an LSM program is attached
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 18:25:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACYkzJ7Pn+hA0yT0UeZEuwSr+ryytw5--Q0nUb+G+fWY5QMhRA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f7e8a16b0815d9d901e019934d684c5f@paul-moore.com>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 2:38 AM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb  7, 2024 KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > BPF LSM hooks have side-effects (even when a default value is returned),
> > as some hooks end up behaving differently due to the very presence of
> > the hook.
> >
> > The static keys guarding the BPF LSM hooks are disabled by default and
> > enabled only when a BPF program is attached implementing the hook
> > logic. This avoids the issue of the side-effects and also the minor
> > overhead associated with the empty callback.
> >
> > security_file_ioctl:
> >    0xffffffff818f0e30 <+0>:   endbr64
> >    0xffffffff818f0e34 <+4>:   nopl   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
> >    0xffffffff818f0e39 <+9>:   push   %rbp
> >    0xffffffff818f0e3a <+10>:  push   %r14
> >    0xffffffff818f0e3c <+12>:  push   %rbx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e3d <+13>:  mov    %rdx,%rbx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e40 <+16>:  mov    %esi,%ebp
> >    0xffffffff818f0e42 <+18>:  mov    %rdi,%r14
> >    0xffffffff818f0e45 <+21>:  jmp    0xffffffff818f0e57 <security_file_ioctl+39>
> >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >    Static key enabled for SELinux
> >
> >    0xffffffff818f0e47 <+23>:  xchg   %ax,%ax
> >                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >    Static key disabled for BPF. This gets patched when a BPF LSM program
> >    is attached
> >
> >    0xffffffff818f0e49 <+25>:  xor    %eax,%eax
> >    0xffffffff818f0e4b <+27>:  xchg   %ax,%ax
> >    0xffffffff818f0e4d <+29>:  pop    %rbx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e4e <+30>:  pop    %r14
> >    0xffffffff818f0e50 <+32>:  pop    %rbp
> >    0xffffffff818f0e51 <+33>:  cs jmp 0xffffffff82c00000 <__x86_return_thunk>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e57 <+39>:  endbr64
> >    0xffffffff818f0e5b <+43>:  mov    %r14,%rdi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e5e <+46>:  mov    %ebp,%esi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e60 <+48>:  mov    %rbx,%rdx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e63 <+51>:  call   0xffffffff819033c0 <selinux_file_ioctl>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e68 <+56>:  test   %eax,%eax
> >    0xffffffff818f0e6a <+58>:  jne    0xffffffff818f0e4d <security_file_ioctl+29>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e6c <+60>:  jmp    0xffffffff818f0e47 <security_file_ioctl+23>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e6e <+62>:  endbr64
> >    0xffffffff818f0e72 <+66>:  mov    %r14,%rdi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e75 <+69>:  mov    %ebp,%esi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e77 <+71>:  mov    %rbx,%rdx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e7a <+74>:  call   0xffffffff8141e3b0 <bpf_lsm_file_ioctl>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e7f <+79>:  test   %eax,%eax
> >    0xffffffff818f0e81 <+81>:  jne    0xffffffff818f0e4d <security_file_ioctl+29>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e83 <+83>:  jmp    0xffffffff818f0e49 <security_file_ioctl+25>
> >    0xffffffff818f0e85 <+85>:  endbr64
> >    0xffffffff818f0e89 <+89>:  mov    %r14,%rdi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e8c <+92>:  mov    %ebp,%esi
> >    0xffffffff818f0e8e <+94>:  mov    %rbx,%rdx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e91 <+97>:  pop    %rbx
> >    0xffffffff818f0e92 <+98>:  pop    %r14
> >    0xffffffff818f0e94 <+100>: pop    %rbp
> >    0xffffffff818f0e95 <+101>: ret
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>
> > Acked-by: Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/bpf_lsm.h   |  5 +++++
> >  include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 13 ++++++++++++-
> >  kernel/bpf/trampoline.c   | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  security/bpf/hooks.c      | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  security/security.c       |  3 ++-
> >  5 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > index 1de7ece5d36d..5bbc31ac948c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ int bpf_lsm_verify_prog(struct bpf_verifier_log *vlog,
> >
> >  bool bpf_lsm_is_sleepable_hook(u32 btf_id);
> >  bool bpf_lsm_is_trusted(const struct bpf_prog *prog);
> > +void bpf_lsm_toggle_hook(void *addr, bool value);
> >
> >  static inline struct bpf_storage_blob *bpf_inode(
> >       const struct inode *inode)
> > @@ -78,6 +79,10 @@ static inline void bpf_lsm_find_cgroup_shim(const struct bpf_prog *prog,
> >  {
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline void bpf_lsm_toggle_hook(void *addr, bool value)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> >  #endif /* CONFIG_BPF_LSM */
> >
> >  #endif /* _LINUX_BPF_LSM_H */
> > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > index ba63d8b54448..e95f0a5cb409 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > @@ -110,11 +110,14 @@ struct lsm_id {
> >   * @scalls: The beginning of the array of static calls assigned to this hook.
> >   * @hook: The callback for the hook.
> >   * @lsm: The name of the lsm that owns this hook.
> > + * @default_state: The state of the LSM hook when initialized. If set to false,
> > + * the static key guarding the hook will be set to disabled.
> >   */
> >  struct security_hook_list {
> >       struct lsm_static_call  *scalls;
> >       union security_list_options     hook;
> >       const struct lsm_id             *lsmid;
> > +     bool                            default_enabled;
>
> Ugh.  We've already got an lsm_static_call::active field, I don't want
> to see another enable/active/etc. flag unless there is absolutely no way
> this works otherwise.

The field default_enabled is used at the time of initialization. The
lsm_static_call::active is a static key which we really cannot use at
initialization time from the various LSMs directly. I don't see a way
out of this one IMHO.

>
> >  } __randomize_layout;
> >
> >  /*
> > @@ -164,7 +167,15 @@ static inline struct xattr *lsm_get_xattr_slot(struct xattr *xattrs,
> >  #define LSM_HOOK_INIT(NAME, CALLBACK)                        \
> >       {                                               \
> >               .scalls = static_calls_table.NAME,      \
> > -             .hook = { .NAME = CALLBACK }            \
> > +             .hook = { .NAME = CALLBACK },           \
> > +             .default_enabled = true                 \
> > +     }
> > +
> > +#define LSM_HOOK_INIT_DISABLED(NAME, CALLBACK)               \
> > +     {                                               \
> > +             .scalls = static_calls_table.NAME,      \
> > +             .hook = { .NAME = CALLBACK },           \

[...]

               static_branch_disable(scalls->active);
> > +             }
> > +     }
> > +}
>
> More ugh.  If we're going to solve things this way, let's make it a
> proper LSM interface and not a BPF LSM specific hack; I *really* don't
> want to see individual LSMs managing the lsm_static_call or
> security_hook_list entries.
>

Fair, and that makes the implementation much simpler too. I created a
security_hook_toggle function in security.c which implements this
functionality.

- KP

> > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > index e05d2157c95a..40d83da87f68 100644
> > --- a/security/security.c
> > +++ b/security/security.c
> > @@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ static void __init lsm_static_call_init(struct security_hook_list *hl)
> >                       __static_call_update(scall->key, scall->trampoline,
> >                                            hl->hook.lsm_callback);
> >                       scall->hl = hl;
> > -                     static_branch_enable(scall->active);
> > +                     if (hl->default_enabled)
> > +                             static_branch_enable(scall->active);
> >                       return;
> >               }
> >               scall++;
> > --
> > 2.43.0.594.gd9cf4e227d-goog
>
> --
> paul-moore.com

      reply	other threads:[~2024-05-05 16:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-07 12:49 [PATCH v9 0/4] Reduce overhead of LSMs with static calls KP Singh
2024-02-07 12:49 ` [PATCH v9 1/4] kernel: Add helper macros for loop unrolling KP Singh
2024-02-07 12:49 ` [PATCH v9 2/4] security: Count the LSMs enabled at compile time KP Singh
2024-02-07 12:49 ` [PATCH v9 3/4] security: Replace indirect LSM hook calls with static calls KP Singh
2024-04-11  0:38   ` Paul Moore
2024-04-11  7:12     ` KP Singh
2024-04-12 15:39       ` Paul Moore
2024-02-07 12:49 ` [PATCH v9 4/4] bpf: Only enable BPF LSM hooks when an LSM program is attached KP Singh
2024-04-11  0:38   ` Paul Moore
2024-05-05 16:25     ` KP Singh [this message]

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=CACYkzJ7Pn+hA0yT0UeZEuwSr+ryytw5--Q0nUb+G+fWY5QMhRA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=kpsingh@kernel.org \
    --cc=andrii@kernel.org \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=casey@schaufler-ca.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    --cc=song@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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).