[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212024542.gdsafhvqykucdp4h@ast-mbp>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:45:44 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...gle.com>,
Florent Revest <revest@...gle.com>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>,
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...gle.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
Florent Revest <revest@...omium.org>,
Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@...omium.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: BPF LSM and fexit [was: [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/10] bpf: lsm: Add
mutable hooks list for the BPF LSM]
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 01:09:07AM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> Another approach could be to have a special nop inside call_int_hook()
> macro which would then get patched to avoid these situations. Somewhat
> similar like static keys where it could be defined anywhere in text but
> with updating of call_int_hook()'s RC for the verdict.
Sounds nice in theory. I couldn't quite picture how that would look
in the code, so I hacked:
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index 565bc9b67276..ce4bc1e5e26c 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
#include <linux/string.h>
#include <linux/msg.h>
#include <net/flow.h>
+#include <linux/jump_label.h>
#define MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR 2
@@ -678,12 +679,26 @@ static void __init lsm_early_task(struct task_struct *task)
* This is a hook that returns a value.
*/
+#define LSM_HOOK_NAME(FUNC) \
+ DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_lsm_key_##FUNC);
+#include <linux/lsm_hook_names.h>
+#undef LSM_HOOK_NAME
+__diag_push();
+__diag_ignore(GCC, 8, "-Wstrict-prototypes", "");
+#define LSM_HOOK_NAME(FUNC) \
+ int bpf_lsm_call_##FUNC() {return 0;}
+#include <linux/lsm_hook_names.h>
+#undef LSM_HOOK_NAME
+__diag_pop();
+
#define call_void_hook(FUNC, ...) \
do { \
struct security_hook_list *P; \
\
hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.FUNC, list) \
P->hook.FUNC(__VA_ARGS__); \
+ if (static_branch_unlikely(&bpf_lsm_key_##FUNC)) \
+ (void)bpf_lsm_call_##FUNC(__VA_ARGS__); \
} while (0)
#define call_int_hook(FUNC, IRC, ...) ({ \
@@ -696,6 +711,8 @@ static void __init lsm_early_task(struct task_struct *task)
if (RC != 0) \
break; \
} \
+ if (RC == IRC && static_branch_unlikely(&bpf_lsm_key_##FUNC)) \
+ RC = bpf_lsm_call_##FUNC(__VA_ARGS__); \
} while (0); \
RC; \
})
The assembly looks good from correctness and performance points.
union security_list_options can be split into lsm_hook_names.h too
to avoid __diag_ignore. Is that what you have in mind?
I don't see how one can improve call_int_hook() macro without
full refactoring of linux/lsm_hooks.h
imo static_key doesn't have to be there in the first set. We can add this
optimization later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists