Thread (26 messages) 26 messages, 6 authors, 2023-06-13

Re: [PATCH RESEND bpf-next 3/4] security: Replace indirect LSM hook calls with static calls

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2023-01-20 04:41:40
Also in: bpf

On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 01:08:17AM +0100, KP Singh wrote:
The indirect calls are not really needed as one knows the addresses of
enabled LSM callbacks at boot time and only the order can possibly
change at boot time with the lsm= kernel command line parameter.

An array of static calls is defined per LSM hook and the static calls
are updated at boot time once the order has been determined.

A static key guards whether an LSM static call is enabled or not,
without this static key, for LSM hooks that return an int, the presence
of the hook that returns a default value can create side-effects which
has resulted in bugs [1].
I think this patch has too many logic changes in it. There are basically
two things going on here:

- replace list with unrolled calls
- replace calls with static calls

I see why it was merged, since some of the logic that would be added for
step 1 would be immediate replaced, but I think it might make things a
bit more clear.

There is likely a few intermediate steps here too, to rename things,
etc.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
There are some hooks that don't use the call_int_hook and
call_void_hook. These hooks are updated to use a new macro called
security_for_each_hook where the lsm_callback is directly invoked as an
indirect call. Currently, there are no performance sensitive hooks that
use the security_for_each_hook macro. However, if, some performance
sensitive hooks are discovered, these can be updated to use
static calls with loop unrolling as well using a custom macro.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/20220609234601.2026362-1-kpsingh@kernel.org/ (local)

Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>
---
 include/linux/lsm_hooks.h |  83 +++++++++++++--
 security/security.c       | 216 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 2 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
index 0a5ba81f7367..c82d15a4ef50 100644
--- a/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
+++ b/include/linux/lsm_hooks.h
@@ -28,6 +28,26 @@
 #include <linux/security.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/rculist.h>
+#include <linux/static_call.h>
+#include <linux/unroll.h>
+#include <linux/jump_label.h>
+
+/* Include the generated MAX_LSM_COUNT */
+#include <generated/lsm_count.h>
+
+#define SECURITY_HOOK_ENABLED_KEY(HOOK, IDX) security_enabled_key_##HOOK##_##IDX
+
+/*
+ * Identifier for the LSM static calls.
+ * HOOK is an LSM hook as defined in linux/lsm_hookdefs.h
+ * IDX is the index of the static call. 0 <= NUM < MAX_LSM_COUNT
+ */
+#define LSM_STATIC_CALL(HOOK, IDX) lsm_static_call_##HOOK##_##IDX
+
+/*
+ * Call the macro M for each LSM hook MAX_LSM_COUNT times.
+ */
+#define LSM_UNROLL(M, ...) UNROLL(MAX_LSM_COUNT, M, __VA_ARGS__)
I think this should be:

#define LSM_UNROLL(M, ...)	do {			\
		UNROLL(MAX_LSM_COUNT, M, __VA_ARGS__);	\
	} while (0)

or maybe UNROLL needs the do/while.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 
 /**
  * union security_list_options - Linux Security Module hook function list
@@ -1657,21 +1677,48 @@ union security_list_options {
 	#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) RET (*NAME)(__VA_ARGS__);
 	#include "lsm_hook_defs.h"
 	#undef LSM_HOOK
+	void *lsm_callback;
 };
 
-struct security_hook_heads {
-	#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) struct hlist_head NAME;
-	#include "lsm_hook_defs.h"
+/*
+ * @key: static call key as defined by STATIC_CALL_KEY
+ * @trampoline: static call trampoline as defined by STATIC_CALL_TRAMP
+ * @hl: The security_hook_list as initialized by the owning LSM.
+ * @enabled_key: Enabled when the static call has an LSM hook associated.
+ */
+struct lsm_static_call {
+	struct static_call_key *key;
+	void *trampoline;
+	struct security_hook_list *hl;
+	struct static_key *enabled_key;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Table of the static calls for each LSM hook.
+ * Once the LSMs are initialized, their callbacks will be copied to these
+ * tables such that the calls are filled backwards (from last to first).
+ * This way, we can jump directly to the first used static call, and execute
+ * all of them after. This essentially makes the entry point
+ * dynamic to adapt the number of static calls to the number of callbacks.
+ */
+struct lsm_static_calls_table {
+	#define LSM_HOOK(RET, DEFAULT, NAME, ...) \
+		struct lsm_static_call NAME[MAX_LSM_COUNT];
+	#include <linux/lsm_hook_defs.h>
 	#undef LSM_HOOK
 } __randomize_layout;
 
 /*
  * Security module hook list structure.
  * For use with generic list macros for common operations.
+ *
+ * struct security_hook_list - Contents of a cacheable, mappable object.
+ * @scalls: The beginning of the array of static calls assigned to this hook.
+ * @hook: The callback for the hook.
+ * @lsm: The name of the lsm that owns this hook.
  */
 struct security_hook_list {
-	struct hlist_node		list;
-	struct hlist_head		*head;
+	struct lsm_static_call	*scalls;
 	union security_list_options	hook;
 	const char			*lsm;
 } __randomize_layout;
@@ -1701,10 +1748,12 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes {
  * care of the common case and reduces the amount of
  * text involved.
  */
-#define LSM_HOOK_INIT(HEAD, HOOK) \
-	{ .head = &security_hook_heads.HEAD, .hook = { .HEAD = HOOK } }
+#define LSM_HOOK_INIT(NAME, CALLBACK)			\
+	{						\
+		.scalls = static_calls_table.NAME,	\
+		.hook = { .NAME = CALLBACK }		\
+	}
 
-extern struct security_hook_heads security_hook_heads;
 extern char *lsm_names;
 
 extern void security_add_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks, int count,
@@ -1756,10 +1805,21 @@ extern struct lsm_info __start_early_lsm_info[], __end_early_lsm_info[];
 static inline void security_delete_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks,
 						int count)
Hey Paul, can we get rid of CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE yet? It's
been deprecated for years....
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 {
-	int i;
+	struct lsm_static_call *scalls;
+	int i, j;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+		scalls = hooks[i].scalls;
+		for (j = 0; j < MAX_LSM_COUNT; j++) {
+			if (scalls[j].hl != &hooks[i])
+				continue;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
-		hlist_del_rcu(&hooks[i].list);
+			static_key_disable(scalls[j].enabled_key);
+			__static_call_update(scalls[j].key,
+					     scalls[j].trampoline, NULL);
+			scalls[j].hl = NULL;
+		}
+	}
 }
 #endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DISABLE */
 
@@ -1771,5 +1831,6 @@ static inline void security_delete_hooks(struct security_hook_list *hooks,
 #endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_WRITABLE_HOOKS */
 
 extern int lsm_inode_alloc(struct inode *inode);
+extern struct lsm_static_calls_table static_calls_table __ro_after_init;
 
 #endif /* ! __LINUX_LSM_HOOKS_H */
diff --git a/security/security.c b/security/security.c
index d1571900a8c7..e54d5ba187d1 100644
--- a/security/security.c
+++ b/security/security.c
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@
 #include <linux/string.h>
 #include <linux/msg.h>
 #include <net/flow.h>
+#include <linux/static_call.h>
+#include <linux/jump_label.h>
 
 #define MAX_LSM_EVM_XATTR	2
 
@@ -74,7 +76,6 @@ const char *const lockdown_reasons[LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX+1] = {
 	[LOCKDOWN_CONFIDENTIALITY_MAX] = "confidentiality",
 };
 
-struct security_hook_heads security_hook_heads __lsm_ro_after_init;
 static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(blocking_lsm_notifier_chain);
 
 static struct kmem_cache *lsm_file_cache;
@@ -93,6 +94,43 @@ static __initconst const char * const builtin_lsm_order = CONFIG_LSM;
 static __initdata struct lsm_info **ordered_lsms;
 static __initdata struct lsm_info *exclusive;
 
+/*
+ * Define static calls and static keys for each LSM hook.
+ */
+
+#define DEFINE_LSM_STATIC_CALL(NUM, NAME, RET, ...)			\
+	DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL(LSM_STATIC_CALL(NAME, NUM),		\
+				*((RET(*)(__VA_ARGS__))NULL));		\
+	DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(SECURITY_HOOK_ENABLED_KEY(NAME, NUM));
Hm, another place where we would benefit from having separated logic for
"is it built?" and "is it enabled by default?" and we could use
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_MAYBE(). But, since we don't, I think we need to use
DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE() here or else won't all the calls be
out-of-line? (i.e. the default compiled state will be NOPs?) If we're
trying to optimize for having LSMs, I think we should default to inline
calls. (The machine code in the commit log seems to indicate that they
are out of line -- it uses jumps.)
[...]
+#define __CALL_STATIC_VOID(NUM, HOOK, ...)                                   \
+	if (static_branch_unlikely(&SECURITY_HOOK_ENABLED_KEY(HOOK, NUM))) { \
+		static_call(LSM_STATIC_CALL(HOOK, NUM))(__VA_ARGS__);        \
+	}
Same here -- I would expect this to be static_branch_likely() or we'll
get out-of-line branches. Also, IMO, this should be:

	do {
		if (...)
			static_call(...);
	} while (0)

+#define call_void_hook(FUNC, ...)                                 \
+	do {                                                      \
+		LSM_UNROLL(__CALL_STATIC_VOID, FUNC, __VA_ARGS__) \
 	} while (0)
With the do/while in LSM_UNROLL, this is more readable.
 
-#define call_int_hook(FUNC, IRC, ...) ({			\
-	int RC = IRC;						\
-	do {							\
-		struct security_hook_list *P;			\
-								\
-		hlist_for_each_entry(P, &security_hook_heads.FUNC, list) { \
-			RC = P->hook.FUNC(__VA_ARGS__);		\
-			if (RC != 0)				\
-				break;				\
-		}						\
-	} while (0);						\
-	RC;							\
-})
+#define __CALL_STATIC_INT(NUM, R, HOOK, ...)                                 \
+	if (static_branch_unlikely(&SECURITY_HOOK_ENABLED_KEY(HOOK, NUM))) { \
+		R = static_call(LSM_STATIC_CALL(HOOK, NUM))(__VA_ARGS__);    \
+		if (R != 0)                                                  \
+			goto out;                                            \
+	}
I would expect the label to be a passed argument, but maybe since it
never changes, it's fine as-is?

And again, I'd expect a do/while wrapper, and for it to be s_b_likely.
+
+#define call_int_hook(FUNC, IRC, ...)                                        \
+	({                                                                   \
+		__label__ out;                                               \
+		int RC = IRC;                                                \
+		do {                                                         \
+			LSM_UNROLL(__CALL_STATIC_INT, RC, FUNC, __VA_ARGS__) \
+									     \
+		} while (0);                                                 \
Then this becomes:

({
	int RC = IRC;
	LSM_UNROLL(__CALL_STATIC_INT, RC, FUNC, __VA_ARGS__);
out:
	RC;
})
+#define security_for_each_hook(scall, NAME, expression)                  \
+	for (scall = static_calls_table.NAME;                            \
+	     scall - static_calls_table.NAME < MAX_LSM_COUNT; scall++) { \
+		if (!static_key_enabled(scall->enabled_key))             \
+			continue;                                        \
+		(expression);                                            \
+	}
Why isn't this using static_branch_enabled()? I would expect this to be:

#define security_for_each_hook(scall, NAME)				\
	for (scall = static_calls_table.NAME;                           \
	     scall - static_calls_table.NAME < MAX_LSM_COUNT; scall++)	\
		if (static_branch_likely(scall->enabled_key))
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 
 /* Security operations */
 
@@ -859,7 +924,7 @@ int security_settime64(const struct timespec64 *ts, const struct timezone *tz)
 
 int security_vm_enough_memory_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, long pages)
 {
-	struct security_hook_list *hp;
+	struct lsm_static_call *scall;
 	int cap_sys_admin = 1;
 	int rc;
 
@@ -870,13 +935,13 @@ int security_vm_enough_memory_mm(struct mm_struct *mm, long pages)
 	 * agree that it should be set it will. If any module
 	 * thinks it should not be set it won't.
 	 */
-	hlist_for_each_entry(hp, &security_hook_heads.vm_enough_memory, list) {
-		rc = hp->hook.vm_enough_memory(mm, pages);
+	security_for_each_hook(scall, vm_enough_memory, ({
+		rc = scall->hl->hook.vm_enough_memory(mm, pages);
 		if (rc <= 0) {
 			cap_sys_admin = 0;
 			break;
 		}
-	}
+	}));
Then these replacements don't look weird. This would just be:

	security_for_each_hook(scall, vm_enough_memory) {
		rc = scall->hl->hook.vm_enough_memory(mm, pages);
  		if (rc <= 0) {
  			cap_sys_admin = 0;
  			break;
  		}
	}

I'm excited to have this. The speed improvements are pretty nice.

-- 
Kees Cook
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help