[PATCH bpf-next v4 3/7] bpf: Introduce BPF_MODIFY_RETURN

[Casey Schaufler]

On 3/5/2020 7:54 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> On 05-Mar 08:51, Stephen Smalley wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM KP Singh <kpsingh at chromium.org> wrote:
>>> From: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
>>>
>>> When multiple programs are attached, each program receives the return
>>> value from the previous program on the stack and the last program
>>> provides the return value to the attached function.
>>>
>>> The fmod_ret bpf programs are run after the fentry programs and before
>>> the fexit programs. The original function is only called if all the
>>> fmod_ret programs return 0 to avoid any unintended side-effects. The
>>> success value, i.e. 0 is not currently configurable but can be made so
>>> where user-space can specify it at load time.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> int func_to_be_attached(int a, int b)
>>> {  <--- do_fentry
>>>
>>> do_fmod_ret:
>>>    <update ret by calling fmod_ret>
>>>    if (ret != 0)
>>>         goto do_fexit;
>>>
>>> original_function:
>>>
>>>     <side_effects_happen_here>
>>>
>>> }  <--- do_fexit
>>>
>>> The fmod_ret program attached to this function can be defined as:
>>>
>>> SEC("fmod_ret/func_to_be_attached")
>>> int BPF_PROG(func_name, int a, int b, int ret)
>>> {
>>>         // This will skip the original function logic.
>>>         return 1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> The first fmod_ret program is passed 0 in its return argument.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh at google.com>
>>> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin at fb.com>
>> IIUC you've switched from a model where the BPF program would be
>> invoked after the original function logic
>> and the BPF program is skipped if the original function logic returns
>> non-zero to a model where the BPF program is invoked first and
>> the original function logic is skipped if the BPF program returns
>> non-zero.  I'm not keen on that for userspace-loaded code attached
> We do want to continue the KRSI series and the effort to implement a
> proper BPF LSM. In the meantime, the tracing + error injection
> solution helps us to:
>
>   * Provide better debug capabilities.
>   * And parallelize the effort to come up with the right helpers
>     for our LSM work and work on sleepable BPF which is also essential
>     for some of the helpers.
>
> As you noted, in the KRSI v4 series, we mentioned that we would like
> to have the user-space loaded BPF programs be unable to override the
> decision made by the in-kernel logic/LSMs, but this got shot down:
>
>    https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/00c216e1-bcfd-b7b1-5444-2a2dfa69190b@schaufler-ca.com
>
> I would like to continue this discussion when we post the v5 series
> for KRSI as to what the correct precedence order should be for the
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM and would appreciate if you also bring it up there.

I believe that I have stated that order isn't my issue.
Go first, last or as specified in the lsm list, I really
don't care. We'll talk about what does matter in the KRSI
thread.


>> to LSM hooks; it means that userspace BPF programs can run even if
>> SELinux would have denied access and SELinux hooks get
>> skipped entirely if the BPF program returns an error.

Then I'm fine with using the LSM ordering mechanisms that Kees
thought through to run the BPF last. Although I think it's somewhat
concerning that SELinux cares what other security models might be
in place. If BPF programs can violate SELinux (or traditional DAC)
policies there are bigger issues than ordering.

>>   I think Casey
>> may have wrongly pointed you in this direction on the grounds
>> it can already happen with the base DAC checking logic.  But that's
> What we can do for this tracing/modify_ret series, is to remove
> the special casing for "security_" functions in the BPF code and add
> ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION calls to the security hooks. This way, if
> someone needs to disable the BPF programs being able to modify
> security hooks, they can disable error injection. If that's okay, we
> can send a patch.
>
> - KP
>
>> kernel DAC checking logic, not userspace-loaded code.
>> And the existing checking on attachment is not sufficient for SELinux
>> since CAP_MAC_ADMIN is not all powerful to SELinux.
>> Be careful about designing your mechanisms around Smack because Smack
>> is not the only LSM.

:)