[PATCH 1/3] security: bpf: Add eBPF LSM hooks to security module
Stephen Smalley
sds at tycho.nsa.gov
Thu Sep 7 12:32:19 UTC 2017
On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 15:24 -0700, Chenbo Feng via Selinux wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Stephen Smalley <sds at tycho.nsa.gov>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 13:56 -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> > > From: Chenbo Feng <fengc at google.com>
> > >
> > > Introduce 5 LSM hooks to provide finer granularity controls on
> > > eBPF
> > > related operations including create eBPF maps, modify and read
> > > eBPF
> > > maps
> > > content and load eBPF programs to the kernel. Hooks use the new
> > > security
> > > pointer inside the eBPF map struct to store the owner's security
> > > information and the different security modules can perform
> > > different
> > > checks based on the information stored inside the security field.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chenbo Feng <fengc at google.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/lsm_hooks.h | 41
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/security.h | 36
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > security/security.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > index ce02f76a6188..3aaf9a08a983 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
> > > @@ -1353,6 +1353,32 @@
> > > * @inode we wish to get the security context of.
> > > * @ctx is a pointer in which to place the allocated security
> > > context.
> > > * @ctxlen points to the place to put the length of @ctx.
> > > + *
> > > + * Security hooks for using the eBPF maps and programs
> > > functionalities through
> > > + * eBPF syscalls.
> > > + *
> > > + * @bpf_map_create:
> > > + * Check permissions prior to creating a new bpf map.
> > > + * Return 0 if the permission is granted.
> > > + *
> > > + * @bpf_map_modify:
> > > + * Check permission prior to insert, update and delete map
> > > content.
> > > + * @map pointer to the struct bpf_map that contains map
> > > information.
> > > + * Return 0 if the permission is granted.
> > > + *
> > > + * @bpf_map_read:
> > > + * Check permission prior to read a bpf map content.
> > > + * @map pointer to the struct bpf_map that contains map
> > > information.
> > > + * Return 0 if the permission is granted.
> > > + *
> > > + * @bpf_prog_load:
> > > + * Check permission prior to load eBPF program.
> > > + * Return 0 if the permission is granted.
> > > + *
> > > + * @bpf_post_create:
> > > + * Initialize the bpf object security field inside struct
> > > bpf_maps and
> > > + * it is used for future security checks.
> > > + *
> > > */
> > > union security_list_options {
> > > int (*binder_set_context_mgr)(struct task_struct *mgr);
> > > @@ -1685,6 +1711,14 @@ union security_list_options {
> > > struct audit_context *actx);
> > > void (*audit_rule_free)(void *lsmrule);
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > > + int (*bpf_map_create)(void);
> > > + int (*bpf_map_read)(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > + int (*bpf_map_modify)(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > + int (*bpf_prog_load)(void);
> > > + int (*bpf_post_create)(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct security_hook_heads {
> > > @@ -1905,6 +1939,13 @@ struct security_hook_heads {
> > > struct list_head audit_rule_match;
> > > struct list_head audit_rule_free;
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > > + struct list_head bpf_map_create;
> > > + struct list_head bpf_map_read;
> > > + struct list_head bpf_map_modify;
> > > + struct list_head bpf_prog_load;
> > > + struct list_head bpf_post_create;
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
> > > } __randomize_layout;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/security.h b/include/linux/security.h
> > > index 458e24bea2d4..0656a4f74d14 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/security.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/security.h
> > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
> > > #include <linux/string.h>
> > > #include <linux/mm.h>
> > > #include <linux/fs.h>
> > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > >
> > > struct linux_binprm;
> > > struct cred;
> > > @@ -1735,6 +1736,41 @@ static inline void
> > > securityfs_remove(struct
> > > dentry *dentry)
> > >
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > > +int security_map_create(void);
> > > +int security_map_modify(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > +int security_map_read(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > +int security_prog_load(void);
> > > +int security_post_create(struct bpf_map *map);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline int security_map_create(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int security_map_read(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int security_map_modify(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int security_prog_load(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline int security_post_create(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY */
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
> >
> > These should be named consistently with the ones in lsm_hooks.h and
> > should unambiguously indicate that these are hooks for bpf
> > objects/operations, i.e. security_bpf_map_create(),
> > security_bpf_map_read(), etc.
> >
>
> Thanks for pointing out, will fix this.
> > Do you need this level of granularity?
> >
>
> The cover letter of this patch series described a possible use cases
> of
> these lsm hooks and this level of granularity would be ideal to reach
> that
> goal. We can also implement two hooks such as bpf_obj_create and
> bpf_obj_use to restrict the creation and using when get the bpf fd
> from
> kernel. But that will be less powerful and flexible.
> > Could you coalesce the map_create() and post_map_create() hooks
> > into
> > one hook and just unwind the create in that case?
> >
>
> Okay, I will take a look on how to fix this.
Also, what you called security_post_create() would normally be called
something like security_bpf_alloc_security(), and would have a
corresponding security_bpf_free_security() hook too. However, whether
or not you still need this security field and hook at all is unclear to
me, given the direction the discussion has gone.
> > Why do you label bpf maps but not bpf progs? Should we be
> > controlling
> > the ability to attach/detach a bpf prog (partly controlled by
> > CAP_NET_ADMIN, but also somewhat broad in scope and doesn't allow
> > control based on who created the prog)?
> >
> > Should there be a top-level security_bpf_use() hook and permission
> > check that limits ability to use bpf() at all?
> >
>
> This could be useful but having additional lsm hooks check when
> reading
> and write to eBPF maps may cause performance issue. Instead maybe we
> could have a hook for creating eBPF object and retrieve object fd to
> restrict
> the access.
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY
> > >
> > > static inline char *alloc_secdata(void)
> > > diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
> > > index 55b5997e4b72..02272f93a89e 100644
> > > --- a/security/security.c
> > > +++ b/security/security.c
> > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > * (at your option) any later version.
> > > */
> > >
> > > +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> > > #include <linux/capability.h>
> > > #include <linux/dcache.h>
> > > #include <linux/module.h>
> > > @@ -1708,3 +1709,30 @@ int security_audit_rule_match(u32 secid,
> > > u32
> > > field, u32 op, void *lsmrule,
> > > actx);
> > > }
> > > #endif /* CONFIG_AUDIT */
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> > > +int security_map_create(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return call_int_hook(bpf_map_create, 0);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int security_map_modify(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return call_int_hook(bpf_map_modify, 0, map);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int security_map_read(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return call_int_hook(bpf_map_read, 0, map);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int security_prog_load(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return call_int_hook(bpf_prog_load, 0);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int security_post_create(struct bpf_map *map)
> > > +{
> > > + return call_int_hook(bpf_post_create, 0, map);
> > > +}
> > > +#endif /* CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list