From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Paul Moore <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected],
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <[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 11:15:24 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhTYBsh4JHhqV0Uyz=H5cEYQw48xOo=CUdXV0gDvyifPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/25/21 8:04 PM, 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);
> + }
>
> We have one if statement where the conditional checks on two
> individual conditions. The first (audit_enabled) is simply a check to
> see if anyone has "turned on" auditing at runtime; historically this
> worked rather well, and still does in a number of places, but ever
> since systemd has taken to forcing audit on regardless of the admin's
> audit configuration it is less useful. The second (audit_context())
> is a check to see if an audit_context has been allocated for the
> current task. In the case of "task,never" current->audit_context will
> be NULL (see audit_alloc()) and the __audit_uring_entry() slowpath
> will never be called.
>
> Worst case here is checking the value of audit_enabled and
> current->audit_context. Depending on which you think is more likely
> we can change the order of the check so that the
> current->audit_context check is first if you feel that is more likely
> to be NULL than audit_enabled is to be false (it may be that way now).
>
> + static inline void audit_uring_exit(int success, long code)
> + {
> + if (unlikely(!audit_dummy_context()))
> + __audit_uring_exit(success, code);
> + }
>
> The exit call is very similar to the entry call, but in the
> "task,never" case it is very simple as the first check to be performed
> is the current->audit_context check which we know to be NULL. The
> __audit_uring_exit() slowpath will never be called.
I actually ran some numbers this morning. The test base is 5.13+, and
CONFIG_AUDIT=y and CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL=y is set for both the baseline
test and the test with this series applied. I used your git branch as of
this morning.
The test case is my usual peak perf test, which is random reads at
QD=128 and using polled IO. It's a single core test, not threaded. I ran
two different tests - one was having a thread just do the IO, the other
is using SQPOLL to do the IO for us. The device is capable than more
IOPS than a single core can deliver, so we're CPU limited in this test.
Hence it's a good test case as it does actual work, and shows software
overhead quite nicely. Runs are very stable (less than 0.5% difference
between runs on the same base), yet I did average 4 runs.
Kernel SQPOLL IOPS Perf diff
---------------------------------------------------------
5.13 0 3029872 0.0%
5.13 1 3031056 0.0%
5.13 + audit 0 2894160 -4.5%
5.13 + audit 1 2886168 -4.8%
That's an immediate drop in perf of almost 5%. Looking at a quick
profile of it (nothing fancy, just checking for 'audit' in the profile)
shows this:
+ 2.17% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_entry
+ 0.71% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_uring_exit
0.07% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_entry
0.02% io_uring [kernel.vmlinux] [k] __audit_syscall_exit
Note that this is with _no_ rules!
>> aio never had any audit logging as far as I can tell. I think it'd make
>> a lot more sense to selectively enable audit logging only for opcodes
>> that we care about. File open/create/unlink/mkdir etc, that kind of
>> thing. File level operations that people would care about logging. Would
>> they care about logging a buffer registration or a polled read from a
>> device/file? I highly doubt it, and we don't do that for alternative
>> methods either. Doesn't really make sense for a lot of the other
>> operations, imho.
>
> 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.
We don't audit read/write from aio, as mentioned. In the past two
decades, I take it that hasn't been a concern? I agree that some opcodes
should _definitely_ be audited. Things like opening a file, closing a
file, removing/creating a file, mount, etc. But normal read/write, I
think that's just utter noise and not useful at all. Auditing on a
per-opcode basis is trivial, io_uring already has provisions for
flagging opcode requirements and this would just be another one.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-26 17:15 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
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 [this message]
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] \
/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