[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ-Heb0nnLygYo0xHaJKSrQM5RSVRNYN2NnYddwGHtWkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 16:43:26 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 16/22] bpf/cgroup,landlock: Handle Landlock hooks per cgroup
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> This allows to add new eBPF programs to Landlock hooks dedicated to a
> cgroup thanks to the BPF_PROG_ATTACH command. Like for socket eBPF
> programs, the Landlock hooks attached to a cgroup are propagated to the
> nested cgroups. However, when a new Landlock program is attached to one
> of this nested cgroup, this cgroup hierarchy fork the Landlock hooks.
> This design is simple and match the current CONFIG_BPF_CGROUP
> inheritance. The difference lie in the fact that Landlock programs can
> only be stacked but not removed. This match the append-only seccomp
> behavior. Userland is free to handle Landlock hooks attached to a cgroup
> in more complicated ways (e.g. continuous inheritance), but care should
> be taken to properly handle error cases (e.g. memory allocation errors).
>
> Changes since v2:
> * new design based on BPF_PROG_ATTACH (suggested by Alexei Starovoitov)
>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
> Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
> Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
> Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
> Cc: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160826021432.GA8291@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160827204307.GA43714@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com
> ---
> include/linux/bpf-cgroup.h | 7 +++++++
> include/linux/cgroup-defs.h | 2 ++
> include/linux/landlock.h | 9 +++++++++
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 1 +
> kernel/bpf/cgroup.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 11 +++++++++++
> security/landlock/lsm.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> security/landlock/manager.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> [...]
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> index 7b75fa692617..1c18fe46958a 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/cgroup.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include <linux/bpf.h>
> #include <linux/bpf-cgroup.h>
> #include <net/sock.h>
> +#include <linux/landlock.h>
>
> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
> @@ -31,7 +32,15 @@ void cgroup_bpf_put(struct cgroup *cgrp)
> union bpf_object pinned = cgrp->bpf.pinned[type];
>
> if (pinned.prog) {
> - bpf_prog_put(pinned.prog);
> + switch (type) {
> + case BPF_CGROUP_LANDLOCK:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK
> + put_landlock_hooks(pinned.hooks);
> + break;
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK */
> + default:
> + bpf_prog_put(pinned.prog);
> + }
> static_branch_dec(&cgroup_bpf_enabled_key);
> }
> }
I get creeped out by type-controlled unions of pointers. :P I don't
have a suggestion to improve this, but I don't like seeing a pointer
type managed separately from the pointer itself as it tends to bypass
a lot of both static and dynamic checking. A union is better than a
cast of void *, but it still worries me. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Nexus Security
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.
