public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]>
To: Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Moore <[email protected]>,
	Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
	Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected],
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 11:49:05 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 2021-05-26 17:17, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
> 
> Am 26.05.21 um 16:38 schrieb Paul Moore:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 6:19 AM Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 5/26/21 3:04 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 9:11 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> On 5/24/21 1:59 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>>>> That said, audit is not for everyone, and we have build time and
> >>>>> runtime options to help make life easier.  Beyond simply disabling
> >>>>> audit at compile time a number of Linux distributions effectively
> >>>>> shortcut audit at runtime by adding a "never" rule to the audit
> >>>>> filter, for example:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  % auditctl -a task,never
> >>>>
> >>>> As has been brought up, the issue we're facing is that distros have
> >>>> CONFIG_AUDIT=y and hence the above is the best real world case outside
> >>>> of people doing custom kernels. My question would then be how much
> >>>> overhead the above will add, considering it's an entry/exit call per op.
> >>>> If auditctl is turned off, what is the expectation in turns of overhead?
> >>>
> >>> I commented on that case in my last email to Pavel, but I'll try to go
> >>> over it again in a little more detail.
> >>>
> >>> As we discussed earlier in this thread, we can skip the req->opcode
> >>> check before both the _entry and _exit calls, so we are left with just
> >>> the bare audit calls in the io_uring code.  As the _entry and _exit
> >>> functions are small, I've copied them and their supporting functions
> >>> below and I'll try to explain what would happen in CONFIG_AUDIT=y,
> >>> "task,never" case.
> >>>
> >>> +  static inline struct audit_context *audit_context(void)
> >>> +  {
> >>> +    return current->audit_context;
> >>> +  }
> >>>
> >>> +  static inline bool audit_dummy_context(void)
> >>> +  {
> >>> +    void *p = audit_context();
> >>> +    return !p || *(int *)p;
> >>> +  }
> >>>
> >>> +  static inline void audit_uring_entry(u8 op)
> >>> +  {
> >>> +    if (unlikely(audit_enabled && audit_context()))
> >>> +      __audit_uring_entry(op);
> >>> +  }
> >>
> >> I'd rather agree that it's my cycle-picking. The case I care about
> >> is CONFIG_AUDIT=y (because everybody enable it), and io_uring
> >> tracing _not_ enabled at runtime. If enabled let them suffer
> >> the overhead, it will probably dip down the performance
> >>
> >> So, for the case I care about it's two of
> >>
> >> if (unlikely(audit_enabled && current->audit_context))
> >>
> >> in the hot path. load-test-jump + current, so it will
> >> be around 7x2 instructions. We can throw away audit_enabled
> >> as you say systemd already enables it, that will give
> >> 4x2 instructions including 2 conditional jumps.
> > 
> > We've basically got it down to the equivalent of two
> > "current->audit_context != NULL" checks in the case where audit is
> > built into the kernel but disabled at runtime, e.g. CONFIG_AUDIT=y and
> > "task,never".  I'm at a loss for how we can lower the overhead any
> > further, but I'm open to suggestions.
> > 
> >> That's not great at all. And that's why I brought up
> >> the question about need of pre and post hooks and whether
> >> can be combined. Would be just 4 instructions and that is
> >> ok (ish).
> > 
> > As discussed previously in this thread that isn't really an option
> > from an audit perspective.
> > 
> >>> We would need to check with the current security requirements (there
> >>> are distro people on the linux-audit list that keep track of that
> >>> stuff), but looking at the opcodes right now my gut feeling is that
> >>> most of the opcodes would be considered "security relevant" so
> >>> selective auditing might not be that useful in practice.  It would
> >>> definitely clutter the code and increase the chances that new opcodes
> >>> would not be properly audited when they are merged.
> >>
> >> I'm curious, why it's enabled by many distros by default? Are there
> >> use cases they use?
> > 
> > We've already talked about certain users and environments where audit
> > is an important requirement, e.g. public sector, health care,
> > financial institutions, etc.; without audit Linux wouldn't be an
> > option for these users, at least not without heavy modification,
> > out-of-tree/ISV patches, etc.  I currently don't have any direct ties
> > to any distros, "Enterprise" or otherwise, but in the past it has been
> > my experience that distros much prefer to have a single kernel build
> > to address the needs of all their users.  In the few cases I have seen
> > where a second kernel build is supported it is usually for hardware
> > enablement.  I'm sure there are other cases too, I just haven't seen
> > them personally; the big distros definitely seem to have a strong
> > desire to limit the number of supported kernel configs/builds.
> > 
> >> Tempting to add AUDIT_IOURING=default N, but won't work I guess
> > 
> > One of the nice things about audit is that it can give you a history
> > of what a user did on a system, which is very important for a number
> > of use cases.  If we selectively disable audit for certain subsystems
> > we create a blind spot in the audit log, and in the case of io_uring
> > this can be a very serious blind spot.  I fear that if we can't come
> > to some agreement here we will need to make io_uring and audit
> > mutually exclusive at build time which would be awful; forcing many
> > distros to either make a hard choice or carry out-of-tree patches.
> 
> I'm wondering why it's not enough to have the native auditing just to happen.

The audit context needs to be set up for each event.  This happens in
audit_syslog_entry and audit_syslog_exit.

> E.g. all (I have checked RECVMSG,SENDMSG,SEND and CONNECT) socket related io_uring opcodes
> already go via security_socket_{recvmsg,sendmsg,connect}()
> 
> IORING_OP_OPENAT* goes via do_filp_open() which is in common with the open[at[2]]() syscalls
> and should also trigger audit_inode() and security_file_open().

These are extra hooks to grab operation-specific (syscall) parameters.

> So why is there anything special needed for io_uring (now that the native worker threads are used)?

Because syscall has been bypassed by a memory-mapped work queue.

> Is there really any io_uring opcode that bypasses the security checks the corresponding native syscall
> would do? If so, I think that should just be fixed...

This is by design to speed it up.  This is what Paul's iouring entry and
exit hooks do.

> Additional LSM based restrictions could be hooked into the io_check_restriction() path
> and setup at io_uring_setup() or early io_uring_register() time.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> metze

- RGB

--
Richard Guy Briggs <[email protected]>
Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems
Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada
IRC: rgb, SunRaycer
Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635


  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-26 15:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-21 21:49 [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 1/9] audit: prepare audit_context for use in calling contexts beyond syscalls Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:49 ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit,io_uring,io-wq: add some basic audit support to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-22  0:22   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-22  2:36     ` Paul Moore
2021-05-23 20:26       ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-24 19:59         ` Paul Moore
2021-05-25  8:27           ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-25 14:53             ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26  1:11           ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26  2:04             ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 10:19               ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-26 14:38                 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 15:11                   ` Steve Grubb
2021-05-26 15:17                   ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-26 15:49                     ` Richard Guy Briggs [this message]
2021-05-26 17:22                       ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-27 17:27                         ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-26 15:49                     ` Victor Stewart
2021-05-26 16:38                       ` Casey Schaufler
2021-05-26 17:15               ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 17:31                 ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 17:54                   ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 18:01                     ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 18:44                       ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 18:57                         ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-05-26 19:10                           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 19:44                         ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-26 20:19                           ` Paul Moore
2021-05-28 16:02                             ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02  8:26                               ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-02 15:46                                 ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-03 10:39                                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-02 19:46                                 ` Paul Moore
2021-06-03 10:51                                   ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-06-03 15:54                                     ` Casey Schaufler
2021-06-03 15:54                               ` Jens Axboe
2021-06-04  5:04                                 ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 18:38                     ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 17:29   ` [RFC PATCH 2/9] audit, io_uring, io-wq: " Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02 20:46     ` Paul Moore
2021-08-25  1:21       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-08-25 19:41         ` Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 3/9] audit: dev/test patch to force io_uring auditing Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 4/9] audit: add filtering for io_uring records Paul Moore
2021-05-28 22:35   ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-30 15:26     ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44       ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02  1:40         ` Paul Moore
2021-06-02 15:37           ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-02 17:20             ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44       ` [PATCH 1/2] audit: add filtering for io_uring records, addendum Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-31 16:08         ` kernel test robot
2021-05-31 17:38         ` kernel test robot
2021-06-07 23:15         ` Paul Moore
2021-06-08 12:55           ` Richard Guy Briggs
2021-06-09  2:45             ` Paul Moore
2021-05-31 13:44       ` [PATCH 2/2] audit: block PERM fields being used with io_uring filtering Richard Guy Briggs
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 5/9] fs: add anon_inode_getfile_secure() similar to anon_inode_getfd_secure() Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 6/9] io_uring: convert io_uring to the secure anon inode interface Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 7/9] lsm,io_uring: add LSM hooks to io_uring Paul Moore
2021-05-26 14:48   ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-26 20:45     ` Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 8/9] selinux: add support for the io_uring access controls Paul Moore
2021-05-21 21:50 ` [RFC PATCH 9/9] Smack: Brutalist io_uring support with debug Paul Moore
2021-05-22  0:53 ` [RFC PATCH 0/9] Add LSM access controls and auditing to io_uring Tetsuo Handa
2021-05-22  2:06   ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 15:00 ` Jeff Moyer
2021-05-26 18:49   ` Paul Moore
2021-05-26 19:07     ` Jeff Moyer
2021-05-26 19:10       ` Paul Moore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox