lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v1 00/13] MAC and Audit policy using eBPF (KRSI)
From
Date
On 12/20/2019 7:41 AM, KP Singh wrote:
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>
> This patch series is a continuation of the KRSI RFC
> (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20190910115527.5235-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/)
>
> # Motivation
>
> Google does rich analysis of runtime security data collected from
> internal Linux deployments (corporate devices and servers) to detect and
> thwart threats in real-time. Currently, this is done in custom kernel
> modules but we would like to replace this with something that's upstream
> and useful to others.
>
> The current kernel infrastructure for providing telemetry (Audit, Perf
> etc.) is disjoint from access enforcement (i.e. LSMs). Augmenting the
> information provided by audit requires kernel changes to audit, its
> policy language and user-space components. Furthermore, building a MAC
> policy based on the newly added telemetry data requires changes to
> various LSMs and their respective policy languages.
>
> This patchset proposes a new stackable and privileged LSM which allows
> the LSM hooks to be implemented using eBPF. This facilitates a unified
> and dynamic (not requiring re-compilation of the kernel) audit and MAC
> policy.
>
> # Why an LSM?
>
> Linux Security Modules target security behaviours rather than the
> kernel's API. For example, it's easy to miss out a newly added system
> call for executing processes (eg. execve, execveat etc.) but the LSM
> framework ensures that all process executions trigger the relevant hooks
> irrespective of how the process was executed.
>
> Allowing users to implement LSM hooks at runtime also benefits the LSM
> eco-system by enabling a quick feedback loop from the security community
> about the kind of behaviours that the LSM Framework should be targeting.
>
> # How does it work?
>
> The LSM introduces a new eBPF (https://docs.cilium.io/en/v1.6/bpf/)
> program type, BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM, which can only be attached to a LSM
> hook. All LSM hooks are exposed as files in securityfs. Attachment
> requires CAP_SYS_ADMIN for loading eBPF programs and CAP_MAC_ADMIN for
> modifying MAC policies.
>
> The eBPF programs are passed the same arguments as the LSM hooks and
> executed in the body of the hook.

This effectively exposes the LSM hooks as external APIs.
It would mean that we can't change or delete them. That
would be bad.


> If any of the eBPF programs returns an
> error (like ENOPERM), the behaviour represented by the hook is denied.
>
> Audit logs can be written using a format chosen by the eBPF program to
> the perf events buffer and can be further processed in user-space.
>
> # Limitations of RFC v1
>
> In the previous design
> (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20190910115527.5235-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/),
> the BPF programs received a context which could be queried to retrieve
> specific pieces of information using specific helpers.
>
> For example, a program that attaches to the file_mprotect LSM hook and
> queries the VMA region could have had the following context:
>
> // Special context for the hook.
> struct bpf_mprotect_ctx {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> };
>
> and accessed the fields using a hypothetical helper
> "bpf_mprotect_vma_get_start:
>
> SEC("lsm/file_mprotect")
> int mprotect_audit(bpf_mprotect_ctx *ctx)
> {
> unsigned long vm_start = bpf_mprotect_vma_get_start(ctx);
> return 0;
> }
>
> or directly read them from the context by updating the verifier to allow
> accessing the fields:
>
> int mprotect_audit(bpf_mprotect_ctx *ctx)
> {
> unsigned long vm_start = ctx->vma->vm_start;
> return 0;
> }
>
> As we prototyped policies based on this design, we realized that this
> approach is not general enough. Adding helpers or verifier code for all
> usages would imply a high maintenance cost while severely restricting
> the instrumentation capabilities which is the key value add of our
> eBPF-based LSM.
>
> Feedback from the BPF maintainers at Linux Plumbers also pushed us
> towards the following, more general, approach.
>
> # BTF Based Design
>
> The current design uses BTF
> (https://facebookmicrosites.github.io/bpf/blog/2018/11/14/btf-enhancement.html,
> https://lwn.net/Articles/803258/) which allows verifiable read-only
> structure accesses by field names rather than fixed offsets. This allows
> accessing the hook parameters using a dynamically created context which
> provides a certain degree of ABI stability:
>
> /* Clang builtin to handle field accesses. */
> #define _(P) (__builtin_preserve_access_index(P))
>
> // Only declare the structure and fields intended to be used
> // in the program
> struct vm_area_struct {
> unsigned long vm_start;
> };
>
> // Declare the eBPF program mprotect_audit which attaches to
> // to the file_mprotect LSM hook and accepts three arguments.
> BPF_TRACE_3("lsm/file_mprotect", mprotect_audit,
> struct vm_area_struct *, vma,
> unsigned long, reqprot, unsigned long, prot
> {
> unsigned long vm_start = _(vma->vm_start);
> return 0;
> }
>
> By relocating field offsets, BTF makes a large portion of kernel data
> structures readily accessible across kernel versions without requiring a
> large corpus of BPF helper functions and requiring recompilation with
> every kernel version. The limitations of BTF compatibility are described
> in BPF Co-Re (http://vger.kernel.org/bpfconf2019_talks/bpf-core.pdf,
> i.e. field renames, #defines and changes to the signature of LSM hooks).
>
> This design imposes that the MAC policy (eBPF programs) be updated when
> the inspected kernel structures change outside of BTF compatibility
> guarantees. In practice, this is only required when a structure field
> used by a current policy is removed (or renamed) or when the used LSM
> hooks change. We expect the maintenance cost of these changes to be
> acceptable as compared to the previous design
> (https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20190910115527.5235-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/).
>
> # Distinction from Landlock
>
> We believe there exist two distinct use-cases with distinct set of users:
>
> * Unprivileged processes voluntarily relinquishing privileges with the
> primary users being software developers.
>
> * Flexible privileged (CAP_MAC_ADMIN, CAP_SYS_ADMIN) MAC and Audit with
> the primary users being system policy admins.
>
> These use-cases imply different APIs and trade-offs:
>
> * The unprivileged use case requires defining more stable and custom APIs
> (through opaque contexts and precise helpers).
>
> * Privileged Audit and MAC requires deeper introspection of the kernel
> data structures to maximise the flexibility that can be achieved without
> kernel modification.
>
> Landlock has demonstrated filesystem sandboxes and now Ptrace access
> control in its patches which are excellent use cases for an unprivileged
> process voluntarily relinquishing privileges.
>
> However, Landlock has expanded its original goal, "towards unprivileged
> sandboxing", to being a "low-level framework to build
> access-control/audit systems" (https://landlock.io). We feel that the
> design and implementation are still driven by the constraints and
> trade-offs of the former use-case, and do not provide a satisfactory
> solution to the latter.
>
> We also believe that our approach, direct access to common kernel data
> structures as with BTF, is inappropriate for unprivileged processes and
> probably not a good option for Landlock.
>
> In conclusion, we feel that the design for a privileged LSM and
> unprivileged LSM are mutually exclusive and that one cannot be built
> "on-top-of" the other. Doing so would limit the capabilities of what can
> be done for an LSM that provides flexible audit and MAC capabilities or
> provide in-appropriate access to kernel internals to an unprivileged
> process.
>
> Furthermore, the Landlock design supports its historical use-case only
> when unprivileged eBPF is allowed. This is something that warrants
> discussion before an unprivileged LSM that uses eBPF is upstreamed.
>
> # Why not tracepoints or kprobes?
>
> In order to do MAC with tracepoints or kprobes, we would need to
> override the return value of the security hook. This is not possible
> with tracepoints or call-site kprobes.
>
> Attaching to the return boundary (kretprobe) implies that BPF programs
> would always get called after all the other LSM hooks are called and
> clobber the pre-existing LSM semantics.
>
> Enforcing MAC policy with an actual LSM helps leverage the verified
> semantics of the framework.
>
> # Usage Examples
>
> A simple example and some documentation is included in the patchset.
>
> In order to better illustrate the capabilities of the framework some
> more advanced prototype code has also been published separately:
>
> * Logging execution events (including environment variables and arguments):
> https://github.com/sinkap/linux-krsi/blob/patch/v1/examples/samples/bpf/lsm_audit_env.c
> * Detecting deletion of running executables:
> https://github.com/sinkap/linux-krsi/blob/patch/v1/examples/samples/bpf/lsm_detect_exec_unlink.c
> * Detection of writes to /proc/<pid>/mem:
> https://github.com/sinkap/linux-krsi/blob/patch/v1/examples/samples/bpf/lsm_audit_env.c
>
> We have updated Google's internal telemetry infrastructure and have
> started deploying this LSM on our Linux Workstations. This gives us more
> confidence in the real-world applications of such a system.
>
> KP Singh (13):
> bpf: Refactor BPF_EVENT context macros to its own header.
> bpf: lsm: Add a skeleton and config options
> bpf: lsm: Introduce types for eBPF based LSM
> bpf: lsm: Allow btf_id based attachment for LSM hooks
> tools/libbpf: Add support in libbpf for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM
> bpf: lsm: Init Hooks and create files in securityfs
> bpf: lsm: Implement attach, detach and execution.
> bpf: lsm: Show attached program names in hook read handler.
> bpf: lsm: Add a helper function bpf_lsm_event_output
> bpf: lsm: Handle attachment of the same program
> tools/libbpf: Add bpf_program__attach_lsm
> bpf: lsm: Add selftests for BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM
> bpf: lsm: Add Documentation
>
> Documentation/security/bpf.rst | 164 +++
> Documentation/security/index.rst | 1 +
> MAINTAINERS | 11 +
> include/linux/bpf_event.h | 78 ++
> include/linux/bpf_lsm.h | 25 +
> include/linux/bpf_types.h | 4 +
> include/trace/bpf_probe.h | 30 +-
> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 12 +-
> kernel/bpf/syscall.c | 10 +
> kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 84 +-
> kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 24 +-
> security/Kconfig | 11 +-
> security/Makefile | 2 +
> security/bpf/Kconfig | 25 +
> security/bpf/Makefile | 7 +
> security/bpf/include/bpf_lsm.h | 63 +
> security/bpf/include/fs.h | 23 +
> security/bpf/include/hooks.h | 1015 +++++++++++++++++
> security/bpf/lsm.c | 160 +++
> security/bpf/lsm_fs.c | 176 +++
> security/bpf/ops.c | 224 ++++
> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 12 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 2 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 6 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 163 ++-
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 4 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 7 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf_probes.c | 1 +
> .../bpf/prog_tests/lsm_mprotect_audit.c | 129 +++
> .../selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_mprotect_audit.c | 58 +
> 30 files changed, 2451 insertions(+), 80 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/security/bpf.rst
> create mode 100644 include/linux/bpf_event.h
> create mode 100644 include/linux/bpf_lsm.h
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/Kconfig
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/Makefile
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/include/bpf_lsm.h
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/include/fs.h
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/include/hooks.h
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/lsm.c
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/lsm_fs.c
> create mode 100644 security/bpf/ops.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/lsm_mprotect_audit.c
> create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/lsm_mprotect_audit.c
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-20 18:18    [W:0.257 / U:8.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site