[PATCH bpf-next v8 05/11] seccomp,landlock: Enforce Landlock programs per process hierarchy
Andy Lutomirski
luto at kernel.org
Sun Apr 8 21:06:58 UTC 2018
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 6:13 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net> wrote:
>
> On 02/27/2018 10:48 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>
>> On 27/02/2018 17:39, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>> <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:20:55AM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>>>> <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:40:34AM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
>>>>>>> <alexei.starovoitov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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 at digikod.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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how that would help. Suppose you add a filter, then
>>>>>>> fork(), and then the child adds another filter. Do you want to
>>>>>>> duplicate the entire array? You certainly can't *modify* the array
>>>>>>> because you'll affect processes that shouldn't be affected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast, doing this through seccomp like the earlier patches
>>>>>>> seemed just fine to me, and seccomp already had the right logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it doesn't look to me that existing seccomp side of managing fork
>>>>>> situation can be reused. Here there is an attempt to add 'chaining'
>>>>>> concept which sort of an extension of existing seccomp style,
>>>>>> but somehow heavily done on bpf side and contradicts cgroup/tracing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why the seccomp way can't be used. I agree with you that
>>>>> the seccomp *style* shouldn't be used in bpf code like this, but I
>>>>> think that Landlock programs can and should just live in the existing
>>>>> seccomp chain. If the existing seccomp code needs some modification
>>>>> to make this work, then so be it.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> if that was the case...
>>>> but that's not my reading of the patch set.
>>>
>>> An earlier version of the patch set used the seccomp filter chain.
>>> Mickaël, what exactly was wrong with that approach other than that the
>>> seccomp() syscall was awkward for you to use? You could add a
>>> seccomp_add_landlock_rule() syscall if you needed to.
>>
>> Nothing was wrong about about that, this part did not changed (see my
>> next comment).
>>
>>>
>>> As a side comment, why is this an LSM at all, let alone a non-stacking
>>> LSM? It would make a lot more sense to me to make Landlock depend on
>>> having LSMs configured in but to call the landlock hooks directly from
>>> the security_xyz() hooks.
>>
>> See Casey's answer and his patch series: https://lwn.net/Articles/741963/
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In other words, the kernel already has two kinds of chaining:
>>>>> seccomp's and bpf's. bpf's doesn't work right for this type of usage
>>>>> across fork(), whereas seccomp's already handles that case correctly.
>>>>> (In contrast, seccomp's is totally wrong for cgroup-attached filters.)
>>>>> So IMO Landlock should use the seccomp core code and call into bpf
>>>>> for the actual filtering.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> in cgroup we had to invent this new BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY mechanism,
>>>> since cgroup hierarchy can be complicated with bpf progs attached
>>>> at different levels with different override/multiprog properties,
>>>> so walking link list and checking all flags at run-time would have
>>>> been too slow. That's why we added compute_effective_progs().
>>>
>>> If we start adding override flags to Landlock, I think we're doing it
>>> wrong. With cgroup bpf programs, the whole mess is set up by the
>>> administrator. With seccomp, and with Landlock if done correctly, it
>>> *won't* be set up by the administrator, so the chance that everyone
>>> gets all the flags right is about zero. All attached filters should
>>> run unconditionally.
>>
>>
>> There is a misunderstanding about this chaining mechanism. This should
>> not be confused with the list of seccomp filters nor the cgroup
>> hierarchies. Landlock programs can be stacked the same way seccomp's
>> filters can (cf. struct landlock_prog_set, the "chain_last" field is an
>> optimization which is not used for this struct handling). This stackable
>> property did not changed from the previous patch series. The chaining
>> mechanism is for another use case, which does not make sense for seccomp
>> filters nor other eBPF program types, at least for now, from what I can
>> tell.
>>
>> You may want to get a look at my talk at FOSDEM
>> (https://landlock.io/talks/2018-02-04_landlock-fosdem.pdf), especially
>> slides 11 and 12.
>>
>> Let me explain my reasoning about this program chaining thing.
>>
>> To check if an action on a file is allowed, we first need to identify
>> this file and match it to the security policy. In a previous
>> (non-public) patch series, I tried to use one type of eBPF program to
>> check every kind of access to a file. To be able to identify a file, I
>> relied on an eBPF map, similar to the current inode map. This map store
>> a set of references to file descriptors. I then created a function
>> bpf_is_file_beneath() to check if the requested file was beneath a file
>> in the map. This way, no chaining, only one eBPF program type to check
>> an access to a file... but some issues then emerged. First, this design
>> create a side-channel which help an attacker using such a program to
>> infer some information not normally available, for example to get a hint
>> on where a file descriptor (received from a UNIX socket) come from.
>> Another issue is that this type of program would be called for each
>> component of a path. Indeed, when the kernel check if an access to a
>> file is allowed, it walk through all of the directories in its path
>> (checking if the current process is allowed to execute them). That first
>> attempt led me to rethink the way we could filter an access to a file
>> *path*.
>>
>> To minimize the number of called to an eBPF program dedicated to
>> validate an access to a file path, I decided to create three subtype of
>> eBPF programs. The FS_WALK type is called when walking through every
>> directory of a file path (except the last one if it is the target). We
>> can then restrict this type of program to the minimum set of functions
>> it is allowed to call and the minimum set of data available from its
>> context. The first implicit chaining is for this type of program. To be
>> able to evaluate a path while being called for all its components, this
>> program need to store a state (to remember what was the parent directory
>> of this path). There is no "previous" field in the subtype for this
>> program because it is chained with itself, for each directories. This
>> enable to create a FS_WALK program to evaluate a file hierarchy, thank
>> to the inode map which can be used to check if a directory of this
>> hierarchy is part of an allowed (or denied) list of directories. This
>> design enables to express a file hierarchy in a programmatic way,
>> without requiring an eBPF helper to do the job (unlike my first experiment).
>>
>> The explicit chaining is used to tied a path evaluation (with a FS_WALK
>> program) to an access to the actual file being requested (the last
>> component of a file path), with a FS_PICK program. It is only at this
>> time that the kernel check for the requested action (e.g. read, write,
>> chdir, append...). To be able to filter such access request we can have
>> one call to the same program for every action and let this program check
>> for which action it was called. However, this design does not allow the
>> kernel to know if the current action is indeed handled by this program.
>> Hence, it is not possible to implement a cache mechanism to only call
>> this program if it knows how to handle this action.
>>
>> The approach I took for this FS_PICK type of program is to add to its
>> subtype which action it can handle (with the "triggers" bitfield, seen
>> as ORed actions). This way, the kernel knows if a call to a FS_PICK
>> program is necessary. If the user wants to enforce a different security
>> policy according to the action requested on a file, then it needs
>> multiple FS_PICK programs. However, to reduce the number of such
>> programs, this patch series allow a FS_PICK program to be chained with
>> another, the same way a FS_WALK is chained with itself. This way, if the
>> user want to check if the action is a for example an "open" and a "read"
>> and not a "map" and a "read", then it can chain multiple FS_PICK
>> programs with different triggers actions. The OR check performed by the
>> kernel is not a limitation then, only a way to know if a call to an eBPF
>> program is needed.
>>
>> The last type of program is FS_GET. This one is called when a process
>> get a struct file or change its working directory. This is the only
>> program type able (and allowed) to tag a file. This restriction is
>> important to not being subject to resource exhaustion attacks (i.e.
>> tagging every inode accessible to an attacker, which would allocate too
>> much kernel memory).
>>
>> This design gives room for improvements to create a cache of eBPF
>> context (input data, including maps if any), with the result of an eBPF
>> program. This would help limit the number of call to an eBPF program the
>> same way SELinux or other kernel components do to limit costly checks.
>>
>> The eBPF maps of progs are useful to call the same type of eBPF
>> program. It does not fit with this use case because we may want multiple
>> eBPF program according to the action requested on a kernel object (e.g.
>> FS_GET). The other reason is because the eBPF program does not know what
>> will be the next (type of) access check performed by the kernel.
>>
>> To say it another way, this chaining mechanism is a way to split a
>> kernel object evaluation with multiple specialized programs, each of
>> them being able to deal with data tied to their type. Using a monolithic
>> eBPF program to check everything does not scale and does not fit with
>> unprivileged use either.
>>
>> As a side note, the cookie value is only an ephemeral value to keep a
>> state between multiple programs call. It can be used to create a state
>> machine for an object evaluation.
>>
>> I don't see a way to do an efficient and programmatic path evaluation,
>> with different access checks, with the current eBPF features. Please let
>> me know if you know how to do it another way.
>>
>
> Andy, Alexei, Daniel, what do you think about this Landlock program
> chaining and cookie?
>
Can you give a small pseudocode real world example that acutally needs
chaining? The mechanism is quite complicated and I'd like to
understand how it'll be used.
--
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