[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:08:58 -0800
From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock
programs per process hierarchy
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:41:15AM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> The seccomp(2) syscall can be used by a task to apply a Landlock program
> to itself. As a seccomp filter, a Landlock program is enforced for the
> current task and all its future children. A program is immutable and a
> task can only add new restricting programs to itself, forming a list of
> programss.
>
> A Landlock program is tied to a Landlock hook. If the action on a kernel
> object is allowed by the other Linux security mechanisms (e.g. DAC,
> capabilities, other LSM), then a Landlock hook related to this kind of
> object is triggered. The list of programs for this hook is then
> evaluated. Each program return a 32-bit value which can deny the action
> on a kernel object with a non-zero value. If every programs of the list
> return zero, then the action on the object is allowed.
>
> Multiple Landlock programs can be chained to share a 64-bits value for a
> call chain (e.g. evaluating multiple elements of a file path). This
> chaining is restricted when a process construct this chain by loading a
> program, but additional checks are performed when it requests to apply
> this chain of programs to itself. The restrictions ensure that it is
> not possible to call multiple programs in a way that would imply to
> handle multiple shared values (i.e. cookies) for one chain. For now,
> only a fs_pick program can be chained to the same type of program,
> because it may make sense if they have different triggers (cf. next
> commits). This restrictions still allows to reuse Landlock programs in
> a safe way (e.g. use the same loaded fs_walk program with multiple
> chains of fs_pick programs).
>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
...
> +struct landlock_prog_set *landlock_prepend_prog(
> + struct landlock_prog_set *current_prog_set,
> + struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> + struct landlock_prog_set *new_prog_set = current_prog_set;
> + unsigned long pages;
> + int err;
> + size_t i;
> + struct landlock_prog_set tmp_prog_set = {};
> +
> + if (prog->type != BPF_PROG_TYPE_LANDLOCK_HOOK)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> + /* validate memory size allocation */
> + pages = prog->pages;
> + if (current_prog_set) {
> + size_t i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(current_prog_set->programs); i++) {
> + struct landlock_prog_list *walker_p;
> +
> + for (walker_p = current_prog_set->programs[i];
> + walker_p; walker_p = walker_p->prev)
> + pages += walker_p->prog->pages;
> + }
> + /* count a struct landlock_prog_set if we need to allocate one */
> + if (refcount_read(¤t_prog_set->usage) != 1)
> + pages += round_up(sizeof(*current_prog_set), PAGE_SIZE)
> + / PAGE_SIZE;
> + }
> + if (pages > LANDLOCK_PROGRAMS_MAX_PAGES)
> + return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);
> +
> + /* ensure early that we can allocate enough memory for the new
> + * prog_lists */
> + err = store_landlock_prog(&tmp_prog_set, current_prog_set, prog);
> + if (err)
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> +
> + /*
> + * Each task_struct points to an array of prog list pointers. These
> + * tables are duplicated when additions are made (which means each
> + * table needs to be refcounted for the processes using it). When a new
> + * table is created, all the refcounters on the prog_list are bumped (to
> + * track each table that references the prog). When a new prog is
> + * added, it's just prepended to the list for the new table to point
> + * at.
> + *
> + * Manage all the possible errors before this step to not uselessly
> + * duplicate current_prog_set and avoid a rollback.
> + */
> + if (!new_prog_set) {
> + /*
> + * If there is no Landlock program set used by the current task,
> + * then create a new one.
> + */
> + new_prog_set = new_landlock_prog_set();
> + if (IS_ERR(new_prog_set))
> + goto put_tmp_lists;
> + } else if (refcount_read(¤t_prog_set->usage) > 1) {
> + /*
> + * If the current task is not the sole user of its Landlock
> + * program set, then duplicate them.
> + */
> + new_prog_set = new_landlock_prog_set();
> + if (IS_ERR(new_prog_set))
> + goto put_tmp_lists;
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(new_prog_set->programs); i++) {
> + new_prog_set->programs[i] =
> + READ_ONCE(current_prog_set->programs[i]);
> + if (new_prog_set->programs[i])
> + refcount_inc(&new_prog_set->programs[i]->usage);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Landlock program set from the current task will not be freed
> + * here because the usage is strictly greater than 1. It is
> + * only prevented to be freed by another task thanks to the
> + * caller of landlock_prepend_prog() which should be locked if
> + * needed.
> + */
> + landlock_put_prog_set(current_prog_set);
> + }
> +
> + /* prepend tmp_prog_set to new_prog_set */
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_prog_set.programs); i++) {
> + /* get the last new list */
> + struct landlock_prog_list *last_list =
> + tmp_prog_set.programs[i];
> +
> + if (last_list) {
> + while (last_list->prev)
> + last_list = last_list->prev;
> + /* no need to increment usage (pointer replacement) */
> + last_list->prev = new_prog_set->programs[i];
> + new_prog_set->programs[i] = tmp_prog_set.programs[i];
> + }
> + }
> + new_prog_set->chain_last = tmp_prog_set.chain_last;
> + return new_prog_set;
> +
> +put_tmp_lists:
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tmp_prog_set.programs); i++)
> + put_landlock_prog_list(tmp_prog_set.programs[i]);
> + return new_prog_set;
> +}
Nack on the chaining concept.
Please do not reinvent the wheel.
There is an existing mechanism for attaching/detaching/quering multiple
programs attached to cgroup and tracing hooks that are also
efficiently executed via BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY.
Please use that instead.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
