Re: BPF LSM and fexit [was: [PATCH bpf-next v3 04/10] bpf: lsm: Add mutable hooks list for the BPF LSM]

[Alexei Starovoitov]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 1:38 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:33:49PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >
> > > Got it. Then let's whitelist them ?
> > > All error injection points are marked with ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION().
> > > We can do something similar here, but let's do it via BTF and avoid
> > > abusing yet another elf section for this mark.
> > > I think BTF_TYPE_EMIT() should work. Just need to pick explicit enough
> > > name and extensive comment about what is going on.
> >
> > Sounds reasonable to me. :)
>
> awesome :)

Looks like the kernel already provides this whitelisting.
$ bpftool btf dump file /sys/kernel/btf/vmlinux |grep FUNC|grep '\<security_'
gives the list of all LSM hooks that lsm-bpf will be able to attach to.
There are two exceptions there security_add_hooks() and security_init().
Both are '__init'. Too late for lsm-bpf to touch.
So filtering BTF funcs by 'security_' prefix will be enough.
It should be documented though.
The number of attachable funcs depends on kconfig which is
a nice property and further strengthen the point that
lsm-bpf is very much kernel specific.
We probably should blacklist security_bpf*() hooks though.
Otherwise inception fans will have a field day.
Disallowing bpf with bpf :)