Message-ID: <57C4B4F4.8030304@digikod.net>
Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:19:32 +0200
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC v2 4/9] bpf, security: Add Checmate security LSM
 and BPF program type


On 29/08/2016 23:49, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 8/29/16 12:24 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Hello, Sargun.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:49:07AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
>>> It would be a separate hook per LSM hook. Why wouldn't we want a
>>> separate bpf
>>> hook per lsm hook? I think if one program has to handle them all, the
>>> first
>>> program would be looking up the hook program in a bpf prog array. If
>>> you think
>>> it's better to have this logic in the BPF program, that makes sense.
>>>
>>> I had a version of this patch that allowed you to attach a prog array
>>> instead,
>>> but I think that it's cleaner attaching a program per lsm hook. In
>>> addition,
>>> there's a performance impact that comes from these hooks, so I
>>> wouldn't want to
>>> execute unneccessary code if it's avoidable.
>>
>> Hmm... it doesn't really matter how the backend part looks like and if
>> we need to implement per-call hooks to lower runtime overhead, sure.
>> I was mostly worried about the approach propagating through the
>> userland visible interface.
>>
>>> The prog array approach also makes stacking filters difficult. If
>>> people want
>>> multiple filters per hook, the orchestrator would have to rewrite the
>>> existing
>>> filters to be cooperative.
>>
>> I'm not really sure "stacking" in the kernel side is a good idea.
>> Please see below.
>>
>>>> I'm not convinced about the approach.  It's an approach which pretty
>>>> much requires future extensions while being rigid.  Not a good
>>>> combination.
>>>
>>> Do you have an alternative recommendation? Maybe just a set of 5 u64s
>>> as the context object along with the hook ID?
>>
>> cgroup fs doesn't seem like the right interface for this but if it
>> were I'd go for named hook IDs instead of opaque numbers.
>>
>>>> Unless this is properly delegatable, IOW, it's safe to fully delegate
>>>> to a lesser security domain for all operations including program
>>>> loading and assignment (I can't see how that'd be the case), making it
>>>> an explicit controller doens't work in terms of userland interface.
>>>> It's fine for bpf / lsm / whatever to attach to cgroups by extending
>>>> struct cgroup itself or implementing an implicit controller but to be
>>>> visible as an explicit controller it must be able to follow cgroup
>>>> interface rules including delegation.  If not, it's best to come
>>>> through the interface which enforces the required permission checks
>>>> and then talk to cgroup from there.  This was also an issue with
>>>> network cgroup bpf programs that Daniel Mack is working on.  Please
>>>> chat with him.
>>>
>>> Program assignment is possible by lesser security domains. Program
>>> loading is
>>> limited to CAP_SYS_ADMIN in init_user_ns. We could make it accessible to
>>> CAP_SYS_ADMIN in any userns, but it the reasoning behind this is that
>>> Checmate
>>> BPF programs can leak kernel pointers.
>>
>> That doesn't make much sense to me.  Delegation doesn't mean much if a
>> delegatee can't load its own program (and I don't see how one can
>> delegate kernel pointer access to !root).  Also, unless there's
>> per-program fine control on who can load it, it seems pretty dangerous
>> to let anyone load any program.
>>
>>> Could we potentially restrict it to only CAP_MAC_OVERRIDE, while
>>> still meeting
>>> cgroup delegation requirements?
>>
>> Wouldn't it make far more sense to pass cgroup fd to bpf syscall so
>> that "load this program" and "attach this program to the cgroup
>> identified by this fd" through the same interface and permission
>> checks?  cgroup participating in bpf operations is all fine but
>> splitting the userland interface across two domains seems like a bad
>> idea.
>>
>>> Filters which are higher up in the heirarchy will still be enforced
>>> during
>>> delegation. This was an explicit design, as the "Orchestrator in
>>> Orchestrator"
>>> use case needs to be supported.
>>
>> Given that program loading is restricted to root, wouldn't it be an a
>> lot more efficient approach to let userland multiplex multiple
>> programs?  Walking the tree executing bpf programs each time one of
>> these operations runs can be pretty expensive.  Imagine a tree like
>> the following.
>>
>>     A - B - C
>>           \ D
>>
>> Let's say program is currently loaded on D.  If someone wants to add a
>> program on B, userland can load the program on B, combine B's and D's
>> program and compile them into a single program and load it on D.  The
>> only thing kernel would need to do in terms of hierarchy is finding
>> what's the closest program to execute.  In the above example, C would
>> need to use B's program and that can be determined on program
>> assignment time rather than on each operation.
> 
> I think that's exactly what Daniel's patches are doing and imo
> it makes sense to keep this style for lsm as well
> and also apply the concept of hook_id.
> Daniel adds two commands to bpf syscall to attach/detach from cgroup
> with hook_id.
> Initially two hooks will be for socket rx and tx.
> Then all interesting lsm hooks can be added one by one.
> Daniel's prog type will be bpf_prog_type_cgroup_socket_filter.
> LSM's prog type will be bpf_prog_type_lsm.
> And verifier can check type safety since the lsm hook_id will be
> passed at the program load time.
> See another thread we had with Mickael.
> 
> landlock and checmate are very similar and should really be
> single lsm as long as we agree that both are cgroup based.
> The main difference between the two:
> - landlock is proposing unpriveleged mode
> - checmate is proposing writing into arguments from the program
> These differences can be flags/options to one lsm.
> Implementations of course are different so far, but
> instead of arguing landlock vs checmate, I'd like us
> to focus on how we can make one lsm that solves all use cases.

Thanks for putting me in the loop. I am agree that both approaches can
be combined and I'm working on a new RFC for Landlock in which it would
be possible to manage unprivileged and privileged eBPF programs
according to extra flags. Sargun's network manipulation and checks (from
Checmate) could then sit on top of it.

However, for this to work, I'm keeping the main Landlock design to be
able to manage unprivileged rules, which is a touchy part. The next RFC
will also contains cgroup handling thanks to Daniel Mack's
BPF_PROG_ATTACH feature.

Basically, the main constraints for an unprivileged LSM are:
* must use and check no_new_priv for all impacted processes, including
moving from and to a cgroup (which get more complicated when dealing
with different privileged eBPF programs);
* must stack/append rules and prohibit removal (need to deal with
multiple processes and their different privileges/user).

Regards,
 Mickaël



Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists