linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf: Add tests for task_local

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5fa24f72dd48e_9fa0e20871@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
Date:   Tue, 03 Nov 2020 22:51:30 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 7/8] bpf: Add tests for task_local_storage

Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:55 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > >
> > > > I saw the docs mention that these are not exposed to tracing programs due to
> > > > insufficient preemption checks. Do you think it would be okay to allow them
> > > > for LSM programs?
> > >
> > > hmm. Isn't it allowed already?
> > > The verifier does:
> > >         if ((is_tracing_prog_type(prog_type) ||
> > >              prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER) &&
> > >             map_value_has_spin_lock(map)) {
> > >                 verbose(env, "tracing progs cannot use bpf_spin_lock yet\n");
> > >                 return -EINVAL;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM is not in this list..
> >
> > The verifier does not have any problem, it's just that the helpers are not
> > exposed to LSM programs via bpf_lsm_func_proto.
> >
> > So all we need is:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > index 61f8cc52fd5b..93383df2140b 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/bpf_lsm.c
> > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ bpf_lsm_func_proto(enum bpf_func_id func_id, const
> > struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >                 return &bpf_task_storage_get_proto;
> >         case BPF_FUNC_task_storage_delete:
> >                 return &bpf_task_storage_delete_proto;
> > +       case BPF_FUNC_spin_lock:
> > +               return &bpf_spin_lock_proto;
> > +       case BPF_FUNC_spin_unlock:
> > +               return &bpf_spin_unlock_proto;
> 
> Ahh. Yes. That should do it. Right now I don't see concerns with safety
> of the bpf_spin_lock in bpf_lsm progs.

What about sleepable lsm hooks? Normally we wouldn't expect to sleep with
a spinlock held. Should we have a check to ensure programs bpf_spin_lock
are not also sleepable?