linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a kernel flag test for LSM bpf hook

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: <87v7sgye6h.fsf@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 10:43:18 -0700
From: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
 "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, John Fastabend
 <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, Martin
 KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>, Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>,
 Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@...ux.dev>, KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri
 Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@...il.com>,
 Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>, Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
 Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Xu Kuohai
 <xukuohai@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
 selinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: Add a kernel flag test
 for LSM bpf hook

Song Liu <song@...nel.org> writes:

> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 5:33 PM Blaise Boscaccy
> <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> This test exercises the kernel flag added to security_bpf by
>> effectively blocking light-skeletons from loading while allowing
>> normal skeletons to function as-is. Since this should work with any
>> arbitrary BPF program, an existing program from LSKELS_EXTRA was
>> used as a test payload.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
>> ---
>>  .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c    | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  .../selftests/bpf/progs/test_kernel_flag.c    | 28 ++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 71 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
>>  create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kernel_flag.c
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..479ad5de3737e
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/kernel_flag.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2025 Microsoft */
>> +#include <test_progs.h>
>> +#include "kfunc_call_test.skel.h"
>> +#include "kfunc_call_test.lskel.h"
>> +#include "test_kernel_flag.skel.h"
>> +
>> +void test_kernel_flag(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct test_kernel_flag *lsm_skel;
>> +       struct kfunc_call_test *skel = NULL;
>> +       struct kfunc_call_test_lskel *lskel = NULL;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       lsm_skel = test_kernel_flag__open_and_load();
>> +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(lsm_skel, "lsm_skel"))
>> +               return;
>> +
>> +       ret = test_kernel_flag__attach(lsm_skel);
>> +       if (!ASSERT_OK(ret, "test_kernel_flag__attach"))
>> +               goto close_prog;
>> +
>> +       lsm_skel->bss->monitored_pid = getpid();
>
> We usually set monitored_pid before attaching the program.
>

Okay, copy that. 

>> +
>> +       /* Test with skel. This should pass the gatekeeper */
>> +       skel = kfunc_call_test__open_and_load();
>> +       if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel, "skel"))
>> +               goto close_prog;
>> +
>> +       /* Test with lskel. This should fail due to blocking kernel-based bpf() invocations */
>> +       lskel = kfunc_call_test_lskel__open_and_load();
>> +       if (!ASSERT_ERR_PTR(lskel, "lskel"))
>> +               goto close_prog;
>> +
>> +close_prog:
>> +       if (skel)
>> +               kfunc_call_test__destroy(skel);
>> +       if (lskel)
>> +               kfunc_call_test_lskel__destroy(lskel);
>> +
>> +       lsm_skel->bss->monitored_pid = 0;
>> +       test_kernel_flag__destroy(lsm_skel);
>> +}
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kernel_flag.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kernel_flag.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000..9ca01aadb6656
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_kernel_flag.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2025 Microsoft Corporation
>> + *
>> + * Author: Blaise Boscaccy <bboscaccy@...ux.microsoft.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include "vmlinux.h"
>> +#include <errno.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
>> +#include <bpf/bpf_tracing.h>
>> +
>> +char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>> +
>> +__u32 monitored_pid;
>> +
>> +SEC("lsm.s/bpf")
>> +int BPF_PROG(bpf, int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size, bool kernel)
>> +{
>> +       __u32 pid;
>> +
>> +       pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32;
>> +       if (!kernel || pid != monitored_pid)
>> +               return 0;
>
> We are blocking lskel load for the pid. This could make
> parallel testing (test_progs -j) flaky. We should probably
> change the logic to filtering on monitored_tiid.
>

Curious on this for my own edification. The

pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32;

is used extensively in the current test suite in a bunch of other
tests. Why does that not cause an issue with the other tests during
parallel testing? 

> Thanks,
> Song
>
>> +       else
>> +               return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>> --
>> 2.48.1
>>
>>