On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:13 AM KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> * Add functionality in libbpf to attach eBPF program to LSM hooks
> * Lookup the index of the LSM hook in security_hook_heads and pass it in
> attr->lsm_hook_index
>
> Signed-off-by: KP Singh <kpsingh@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c | 6 +-
> tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h | 1 +
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h | 4 ++
> tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map | 3 +
> 5 files changed, 138 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> index 500afe478e94..b138d98ff862 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.c
> @@ -235,7 +235,10 @@ int bpf_load_program_xattr(const struct bpf_load_program_attr *load_attr,
> memset(&attr, 0, sizeof(attr));
> attr.prog_type = load_attr->prog_type;
> attr.expected_attach_type = load_attr->expected_attach_type;
> - if (attr.prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS) {
> +
> + if (attr.prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> + attr.lsm_hook_index = load_attr->lsm_hook_index;
> + } else if (attr.prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS) {
> attr.attach_btf_id = load_attr->attach_btf_id;
> } else if (attr.prog_type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) {
> attr.attach_btf_id = load_attr->attach_btf_id;
> @@ -244,6 +247,7 @@ int bpf_load_program_xattr(const struct bpf_load_program_attr *load_attr,
> attr.prog_ifindex = load_attr->prog_ifindex;
> attr.kern_version = load_attr->kern_version;
> }
> +
> attr.insn_cnt = (__u32)load_attr->insns_cnt;
> attr.insns = ptr_to_u64(load_attr->insns);
> attr.license = ptr_to_u64(load_attr->license);
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> index 56341d117e5b..54458a102939 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/bpf.h
> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ struct bpf_load_program_attr {
> __u32 prog_ifindex;
> __u32 attach_btf_id;
> };
> + __u32 lsm_hook_index;
this is changing memory layout of struct bpf_load_program_attr, which
is part of public API, so breaking backward compatibility. But I think
you intended to put it inside union along the attach_btf_id?
also, we use idx for index pretty consistently (apart from ifindex),
so maybe lsm_hook_idx?
> __u32 prog_btf_fd;
> __u32 func_info_rec_size;
> const void *func_info;
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> index 0c229f00a67e..60737559a9a6 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.c
> @@ -229,6 +229,7 @@ struct bpf_program {
> enum bpf_attach_type expected_attach_type;
> __u32 attach_btf_id;
> __u32 attach_prog_fd;
> + __u32 lsm_hook_index
> void *func_info;
> __u32 func_info_rec_size;
> __u32 func_info_cnt;
> @@ -4886,7 +4887,10 @@ load_program(struct bpf_program *prog, struct bpf_insn *insns, int insns_cnt,
> load_attr.insns = insns;
> load_attr.insns_cnt = insns_cnt;
> load_attr.license = license;
> - if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS) {
> +
> + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> + load_attr.lsm_hook_index = prog->lsm_hook_index;
> + } else if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_STRUCT_OPS) {
> load_attr.attach_btf_id = prog->attach_btf_id;
> } else if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) {
> load_attr.attach_prog_fd = prog->attach_prog_fd;
> @@ -4895,6 +4899,7 @@ load_program(struct bpf_program *prog, struct bpf_insn *insns, int insns_cnt,
> load_attr.kern_version = kern_version;
> load_attr.prog_ifindex = prog->prog_ifindex;
> }
> +
> /* if .BTF.ext was loaded, kernel supports associated BTF for prog */
> if (prog->obj->btf_ext)
> btf_fd = bpf_object__btf_fd(prog->obj);
> @@ -4967,9 +4972,11 @@ static int libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(const char *name,
> enum bpf_attach_type attach_type,
> __u32 attach_prog_fd);
>
> +static __s32 btf__find_lsm_hook_index(const char *name);
> +
> int bpf_program__load(struct bpf_program *prog, char *license, __u32 kern_ver)
> {
> - int err = 0, fd, i, btf_id;
> + int err = 0, fd, i, btf_id, index;
>
> if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING) {
> btf_id = libbpf_find_attach_btf_id(prog->section_name,
> @@ -4980,6 +4987,13 @@ int bpf_program__load(struct bpf_program *prog, char *license, __u32 kern_ver)
> prog->attach_btf_id = btf_id;
> }
>
> + if (prog->type == BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM) {
> + index = btf__find_lsm_hook_index(prog->section_name);
> + if (index < 0)
> + return index;
> + prog->lsm_hook_index = index;
> + }
> +
> if (prog->instances.nr < 0 || !prog->instances.fds) {
> if (prog->preprocessor) {
> pr_warn("Internal error: can't load program '%s'\n",
> @@ -6207,6 +6221,7 @@ bool bpf_program__is_##NAME(const struct bpf_program *prog) \
> } \
>
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_FNS(socket_filter, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SOCKET_FILTER);
> +BPF_PROG_TYPE_FNS(lsm, BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM);
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_FNS(kprobe, BPF_PROG_TYPE_KPROBE);
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_FNS(sched_cls, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS);
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_FNS(sched_act, BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT);
> @@ -6272,6 +6287,8 @@ static struct bpf_link *attach_raw_tp(const struct bpf_sec_def *sec,
> struct bpf_program *prog);
> static struct bpf_link *attach_trace(const struct bpf_sec_def *sec,
> struct bpf_program *prog);
> +static struct bpf_link *attach_lsm(const struct bpf_sec_def *sec,
> + struct bpf_program *prog);
>
> struct bpf_sec_def {
> const char *sec;
> @@ -6315,12 +6332,17 @@ static const struct bpf_sec_def section_defs[] = {
> .expected_attach_type = BPF_TRACE_FEXIT,
> .is_attach_btf = true,
> .attach_fn = attach_trace),
> + SEC_DEF("lsm/", LSM,
> + .expected_attach_type = BPF_LSM_MAC,
> + .attach_fn = attach_lsm),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("xdp", BPF_PROG_TYPE_XDP),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("perf_event", BPF_PROG_TYPE_PERF_EVENT),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("lwt_in", BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("lwt_out", BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_OUT),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("lwt_xmit", BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT),
> BPF_PROG_SEC("lwt_seg6local", BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_SEG6LOCAL),
> + BPF_PROG_BTF("lsm/", BPF_PROG_TYPE_LSM,
> + BPF_LSM_MAC),
This is just a duplicate of SEC_DEF above, remove?
> BPF_APROG_SEC("cgroup_skb/ingress", BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
> BPF_CGROUP_INET_INGRESS),
> BPF_APROG_SEC("cgroup_skb/egress", BPF_PROG_TYPE_CGROUP_SKB,
> @@ -6576,32 +6598,80 @@ static int bpf_object__collect_struct_ops_map_reloc(struct bpf_object *obj,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> -#define BTF_PREFIX "btf_trace_"
> +#define BTF_TRACE_PREFIX "btf_trace_"
> +
> +static inline int btf__find_by_prefix_kind(struct btf *btf, const char *name,
> + const char *prefix, __u32 kind)
this is internal helper, not really BTF API, let's call it
find_btf_by_prefix_kind? Also const char *prefix more logically should
go before name argument?
> +{
> + char btf_type_name[128];
> +
> + snprintf(btf_type_name, sizeof(btf_type_name), "%s%s", prefix, name);
check overflow?
> + return btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, btf_type_name, kind);
> +}
> +
> +static __s32 btf__find_lsm_hook_index(const char *name)
this name is violating libbpf naming guidelines. Just
`find_lsm_hook_idx` for now?
> +{
> + struct btf *btf = bpf_find_kernel_btf();
ok, it's probably time to do this right. Let's ensure we load kernel
BTF just once, keep it inside bpf_object while we need it and then
release it after successful load. We are at the point where all the
new types of program is loading/releasing kernel BTF for every section
and it starts to feel very wasteful.
> + const struct bpf_sec_def *sec_def;
> + const struct btf_type *hl_type;
> + struct btf_member *m;
> + __u16 vlen;
> + __s32 hl_id;
> + int j;
j without having i used anywhere?...
> +
> + sec_def = find_sec_def(name);
> + if (!sec_def)
> + return -ESRCH;
> +
> + name += sec_def->len;
> +
> + hl_id = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, "security_hook_heads",
> + BTF_KIND_STRUCT);
> + if (hl_id < 0) {
> + pr_debug("security_hook_heads cannot be found in BTF\n");
"in vmlinux BTF" ?
and it should be pr_warn(), we don't really expect this, right?
and it should be (hl_id <= 0) with current btf__find_by_name_kind(),
and then return hl_id ? : -ESRCH, which further proves we need to
change btf__find_by_name_kind() as I suggested below.
> + return hl_id;
> + }
> +
> + hl_type = btf__type_by_id(btf, hl_id);
> + if (!hl_type) {
> + pr_warn("Can't find type for security_hook_heads: %u\n", hl_id);
> + return -EINVAL;
-ESRCH?
> + }
> +
> + m = btf_members(hl_type);
> + vlen = btf_vlen(hl_type);
> +
> + for (j = 0; j < vlen; j++) {
can add succinct `, m++` here instead
> + if (!strcmp(btf__name_by_offset(btf, m->name_off), name))
> + return j + 1;
I looked briefly through kernel-side patch introducing lsm_hook_index,
but it didn't seem to explain why this index needs to be (unnaturally)
1-based. So asking here first as I'm looking through libbpf changes?
> + m++;
> + }
> +
> + pr_warn("Cannot find offset for %s in security_hook_heads\n", name);
it's not offset, rather member index?
> + return -ENOENT;
not entirely clear about distinction between ENOENT and ESRCH? So far
we typically used ESRCH, does ENOENT have more specific semantics?
> +}
> +
> int libbpf_find_vmlinux_btf_id(const char *name,
> enum bpf_attach_type attach_type)
> {
> struct btf *btf = bpf_find_kernel_btf();
> - char raw_tp_btf[128] = BTF_PREFIX;
> - char *dst = raw_tp_btf + sizeof(BTF_PREFIX) - 1;
> - const char *btf_name;
> int err = -EINVAL;
> - __u32 kind;
>
> if (IS_ERR(btf)) {
> pr_warn("vmlinux BTF is not found\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (attach_type == BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP) {
> - /* prepend "btf_trace_" prefix per kernel convention */
> - strncat(dst, name, sizeof(raw_tp_btf) - sizeof(BTF_PREFIX));
> - btf_name = raw_tp_btf;
> - kind = BTF_KIND_TYPEDEF;
> - } else {
> - btf_name = name;
> - kind = BTF_KIND_FUNC;
> - }
> - err = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, btf_name, kind);
> + if (attach_type == BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP)
> + err = btf__find_by_prefix_kind(btf, name, BTF_TRACE_PREFIX,
> + BTF_KIND_TYPEDEF);
> + else
> + err = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, name, BTF_KIND_FUNC);
> +
> + /* err = 0 means void / UNKNOWN which is treated as an error */
> + if (err == 0)
> + err = -EINVAL;
I think it's actually less error-prone to make btf__find_by_name_kind
and btf__find_by_prefix_kind to return -ESRCH when type is not found,
instead of a valid type_id 0. I just checked, and struct_ops code
already is mishandling it, only checking for <0. Could you make this
change and just do a natural <0 check everywhere?
> +
> btf__free(btf);
> return err;
> }
> @@ -6630,7 +6700,7 @@ static int libbpf_find_prog_btf_id(const char *name, __u32 attach_prog_fd)
> }
> err = btf__find_by_name_kind(btf, name, BTF_KIND_FUNC);
> btf__free(btf);
> - if (err <= 0) {
> + if (err < 0) {
> pr_warn("%s is not found in prog's BTF\n", name);
> goto out;
> }
> @@ -7395,6 +7465,43 @@ static struct bpf_link *attach_trace(const struct bpf_sec_def *sec,
> return bpf_program__attach_trace(prog);
> }
>
> +struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach_lsm(struct bpf_program *prog)
> +{
> + char errmsg[STRERR_BUFSIZE];
> + struct bpf_link_fd *link;
> + int prog_fd, pfd;
> +
> + prog_fd = bpf_program__fd(prog);
> + if (prog_fd < 0) {
> + pr_warn("program '%s': can't attach before loaded\n",
> + bpf_program__title(prog, false));
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> + }
> +
> + link = calloc(1, sizeof(*link));
> + if (!link)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> + link->link.detach = &bpf_link__detach_fd;
> +
> + pfd = bpf_prog_attach(prog_fd, 0, BPF_LSM_MAC,
> + BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE);
do we want to always specify ALLOW_OVERRIDE? Or should it be an option?
> + if (pfd < 0) {
> + pfd = -errno;
> + pr_warn("program '%s': failed to attach: %s\n",
> + bpf_program__title(prog, false),
> + libbpf_strerror_r(pfd, errmsg, sizeof(errmsg)));
> + return ERR_PTR(pfd);
leaking link here
> + }
> + link->fd = pfd;
> + return (struct bpf_link *)link;
> +}
> +
> +static struct bpf_link *attach_lsm(const struct bpf_sec_def *sec,
> + struct bpf_program *prog)
> +{
> + return bpf_program__attach_lsm(prog);
> +}
> +
> struct bpf_link *bpf_program__attach(struct bpf_program *prog)
> {
> const struct bpf_sec_def *sec_def;
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> index 01639f9a1062..a97e709a29e6 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.h
> @@ -241,6 +241,8 @@ LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *
> bpf_program__attach_trace(struct bpf_program *prog);
> struct bpf_map;
> LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *bpf_map__attach_struct_ops(struct bpf_map *map);
> +LIBBPF_API struct bpf_link *
> +bpf_program__attach_lsm(struct bpf_program *prog);
nit: put it after attach_trace, so that program attaches and map
attaches are grouped together, not intermixed
> struct bpf_insn;
>
> /*
> @@ -318,6 +320,7 @@ LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_xdp(struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_perf_event(struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_tracing(struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_struct_ops(struct bpf_program *prog);
> +LIBBPF_API int bpf_program__set_lsm(struct bpf_program *prog);
>
> LIBBPF_API enum bpf_prog_type bpf_program__get_type(struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API void bpf_program__set_type(struct bpf_program *prog,
> @@ -339,6 +342,7 @@ LIBBPF_API bool bpf_program__is_xdp(const struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API bool bpf_program__is_perf_event(const struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API bool bpf_program__is_tracing(const struct bpf_program *prog);
> LIBBPF_API bool bpf_program__is_struct_ops(const struct bpf_program *prog);
> +LIBBPF_API bool bpf_program__is_lsm(const struct bpf_program *prog);
>
> /*
> * No need for __attribute__((packed)), all members of 'bpf_map_def'
> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> index a19f04e6e3d9..3da0452ce679 100644
> --- a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.map
> @@ -227,4 +227,7 @@ LIBBPF_0.0.7 {
> bpf_program__is_struct_ops;
> bpf_program__set_struct_ops;
> btf__align_of;
> + bpf_program__is_lsm;
> + bpf_program__set_lsm;
> + bpf_program__attach_lsm;
preserve alphabetical order, please
> } LIBBPF_0.0.6;
> --
> 2.20.1
>
