[bpf-next,v4,4/7] bpf: Attachment verification for BPF_MODIFY_RETURN

From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>

- Allow BPF_MODIFY_RETURN attachment only to functions that are:

    * Whitelisted for error injection by checking
      within_error_injection_list. Similar discussions happened for the
      bpf_override_return helper.

    * security hooks, this is expected to be cleaned up with the LSM
      changes after the KRSI patches introduce the LSM_HOOK macro:

        https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200220175250.10795-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/

- The attachment is currently limited to functions that return an int.
  This can be extended later other types (e.g. PTR).

Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
---
 kernel/bpf/btf.c      | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--------
 kernel/bpf/verifier.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
>
> - Allow BPF_MODIFY_RETURN attachment only to functions that are:
>
>     * Whitelisted for error injection by checking
>       within_error_injection_list. Similar discussions happened for the
>       bpf_override_return helper.
>
>     * security hooks, this is expected to be cleaned up with the LSM
>       changes after the KRSI patches introduce the LSM_HOOK macro:
>
>         https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200220175250.10795-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/
>
> - The attachment is currently limited to functions that return an int.
>   This can be extended later other types (e.g. PTR).
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> index 2460c8e6b5be..ae32517d4ccd 100644
> --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> @@ -9800,6 +9801,33 @@ static int check_struct_ops_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
>
>         return 0;
>  }
> +#define SECURITY_PREFIX "security_"
> +
> +static int check_attach_modify_return(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> +{
> +       struct bpf_prog *prog = env->prog;
> +       unsigned long addr = (unsigned long) prog->aux->trampoline->func.addr;
> +
> +       if (within_error_injection_list(addr))
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       /* This is expected to be cleaned up in the future with the KRSI effort
> +        * introducing the LSM_HOOK macro for cleaning up lsm_hooks.h.
> +        */
> +       if (!strncmp(SECURITY_PREFIX, prog->aux->attach_func_name,
> +                    sizeof(SECURITY_PREFIX) - 1)) {
> +
> +               if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN))
> +                       return -EPERM;

CAP_MAC_ADMIN was originally introduced for Smack and is not
all-powerful wrt SELinux, so this is not a sufficient check for
SELinux.
We would want an actual security hook called here so we can implement
a specific check over userspace
being able to attach BPF progs to LSM hooks.  CAP_MAC_ADMIN has other
connotations to SELinux (presently the
ability to set/get file security labels that are not known to the
currently loaded policy).

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 08:43:11AM -0500, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 2:20 PM KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > From: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> >
> > - Allow BPF_MODIFY_RETURN attachment only to functions that are:
> >
> >     * Whitelisted for error injection by checking
> >       within_error_injection_list. Similar discussions happened for the
> >       bpf_override_return helper.
> >
> >     * security hooks, this is expected to be cleaned up with the LSM
> >       changes after the KRSI patches introduce the LSM_HOOK macro:
> >
> >         https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200220175250.10795-1-kpsingh@chromium.org/
> >
> > - The attachment is currently limited to functions that return an int.
> >   This can be extended later other types (e.g. PTR).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@google.com>
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > index 2460c8e6b5be..ae32517d4ccd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > +++ b/kernel/bpf/verifier.c
> > @@ -9800,6 +9801,33 @@ static int check_struct_ops_btf_id(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> >
> >         return 0;
> >  }
> > +#define SECURITY_PREFIX "security_"
> > +
> > +static int check_attach_modify_return(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > +{
> > +       struct bpf_prog *prog = env->prog;
> > +       unsigned long addr = (unsigned long) prog->aux->trampoline->func.addr;
> > +
> > +       if (within_error_injection_list(addr))
> > +               return 0;
> > +
> > +       /* This is expected to be cleaned up in the future with the KRSI effort
> > +        * introducing the LSM_HOOK macro for cleaning up lsm_hooks.h.
> > +        */
> > +       if (!strncmp(SECURITY_PREFIX, prog->aux->attach_func_name,
> > +                    sizeof(SECURITY_PREFIX) - 1)) {
> > +
> > +               if (!capable(CAP_MAC_ADMIN))
> > +                       return -EPERM;
> 
> CAP_MAC_ADMIN was originally introduced for Smack and is not
> all-powerful wrt SELinux, so this is not a sufficient check for
> SELinux.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent here.
This facility is just a faster version of kprobe based fault injection.
It doesn't care about LSM. Security is not a focus here.
It can fault inject in a lot of places in the kernel: syscalls,
kmalloc, page_alloc, fs internals, etc
I think above capable() check created this confusion and
we should remove it.