On Mon, 2017-10-09 at 15:20 -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:
> From: Chenbo Feng <fengc@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Implement the actual checks introduced to eBPF related syscalls. This
> implementation use the security field inside bpf object to store a
> sid that
> identify the bpf object. And when processes try to access the object,
> selinux will check if processes have the right privileges. The
> creation
> of eBPF object are also checked at the general bpf check hook and new
> cmd introduced to eBPF domain can also be checked there.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chenbo Feng <fengc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> security/selinux/hooks.c | 111
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> security/selinux/include/classmap.h | 2 +
> security/selinux/include/objsec.h | 4 ++
> 3 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/hooks.c b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> index f5d304736852..41aba4e3d57c 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/hooks.c
> +++ b/security/selinux/hooks.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
> #include <linux/export.h>
> #include <linux/msg.h>
> #include <linux/shm.h>
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
>
> #include "avc.h"
> #include "objsec.h"
> @@ -6252,6 +6253,106 @@ static void selinux_ib_free_security(void
> *ib_sec)
> }
> #endif
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> +static int selinux_bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr,
> + unsigned int size)
> +{
> + u32 sid = current_sid();
> + int ret;
> +
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case BPF_MAP_CREATE:
> + ret = avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_BPF_MAP,
> BPF_MAP__CREATE,
> + NULL);
> + break;
> + case BPF_PROG_LOAD:
> + ret = avc_has_perm(sid, sid, SECCLASS_BPF_PROG,
> BPF_PROG__LOAD,
> + NULL);
> + break;
> + default:
> + ret = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static u32 bpf_map_fmode_to_av(fmode_t fmode)
> +{
> + u32 av = 0;
> +
> + if (f_mode & FMODE_READ)
> + av |= BPF_MAP__READ;
> + if (f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
> + av |= BPF_MAP__WRITE;
> + return av;
> +}
> +
> +static int selinux_bpf_map(struct bpf_map *map, fmode_t fmode)
> +{
> + u32 sid = current_sid();
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec;
> +
> + bpfsec = map->security;
> + return avc_has_perm(sid, bpfsec->sid, SECCLASS_BPF_MAP,
> + bpf_map_fmode_to_av(fmode), NULL);
> +}
> +
> +static int selinux_bpf_prog(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> +{
> + u32 sid = current_sid();
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec;
> +
> + bpfsec = prog->aux->security;
> + return avc_has_perm(sid, bpfsec->sid, SECCLASS_BPF_PROG,
> + BPF_PROG__USE, NULL);
> +}
> +
> +static int selinux_bpf_map_alloc(struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec;
> +
> + bpfsec = kzalloc(sizeof(*bpfsec), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!bpfsec)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + bpfsec->sid = current_sid();
> + map->security = bpfsec;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void selinux_bpf_map_free(struct bpf_map *map)
> +{
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec = map->security;
> +
> + map->security = NULL;
> + kfree(bpfsec);
> +}
> +
> +static int selinux_bpf_prog_alloc(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> +{
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec;
> +
> + bpfsec = kzalloc(sizeof(*bpfsec), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!bpfsec)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + bpfsec->sid = current_sid();
> + aux->security = bpfsec;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void selinux_bpf_prog_free(struct bpf_prog_aux *aux)
> +{
> + struct bpf_security_struct *bpfsec = aux->security;
> +
> + aux->security = NULL;
> + kfree(bpfsec);
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static struct security_hook_list selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init
> = {
> LSM_HOOK_INIT(binder_set_context_mgr,
> selinux_binder_set_context_mgr),
> LSM_HOOK_INIT(binder_transaction,
> selinux_binder_transaction),
> @@ -6471,6 +6572,16 @@ static struct security_hook_list
> selinux_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> LSM_HOOK_INIT(audit_rule_match, selinux_audit_rule_match),
> LSM_HOOK_INIT(audit_rule_free, selinux_audit_rule_free),
> #endif
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf, selinux_bpf),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_map, selinux_bpf_map),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_prog, selinux_bpf_prog),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_map_alloc_security,
> selinux_bpf_map_alloc),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_prog_alloc_security,
> selinux_bpf_prog_alloc),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_map_free_security, selinux_bpf_map_free),
> + LSM_HOOK_INIT(bpf_prog_free_security,
> selinux_bpf_prog_free),
> +#endif
> };
>
> static __init int selinux_init(void)
> diff --git a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> index 35ffb29a69cb..7253c5eea59c 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> +++ b/security/selinux/include/classmap.h
> @@ -237,6 +237,8 @@ struct security_class_mapping secclass_map[] = {
> { "access", NULL } },
> { "infiniband_endport",
> { "manage_subnet", NULL } },
> + { "bpf_map", {"create", "read", "write"} },
> + { "bpf_prog", {"load", "use"} },
Again I have to ask: do you truly need/want two separate classes, or
would a single class with distinct permissions suffice, ala:
{ "bpf", { "create_map", "read_map", "write_map", "prog_load",
"prog_use" } },
and then allow A self:bpf { create_map read_map write_map prog_load
prog_use }; would be stored in a single policy avtab rule, and be
cached in a single AVC entry.
> { NULL }
> };
>
> diff --git a/security/selinux/include/objsec.h
> b/security/selinux/include/objsec.h
> index 1649cd18eb0b..3d54468ce334 100644
> --- a/security/selinux/include/objsec.h
> +++ b/security/selinux/include/objsec.h
> @@ -150,6 +150,10 @@ struct pkey_security_struct {
> u32 sid; /* SID of pkey */
> };
>
> +struct bpf_security_struct {
> + u32 sid; /*SID of bpf obj creater*/
> +};
> +
> extern unsigned int selinux_checkreqprot;
>
> #endif /* _SELINUX_OBJSEC_H_ */
