Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:35:28 +0100
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        James Morris <jmorris@namei.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@chromium.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 5/7] bpf: lsm: Initialize the BPF LSM hooks
Message-ID: <20200325143528.GA22419@chromium.org>
References: <20200323164415.12943-1-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <20200323164415.12943-6-kpsingh@chromium.org>
 <202003231237.F654B379@keescook>
 <0655d820-4c42-cf9a-23d3-82dc4fdeeceb@schaufler-ca.com>
 <202003231354.1454ED92EC@keescook>
 <a9a7e251-9813-7d37-34d1-c50db2273569@schaufler-ca.com>
 <202003231505.59A11B06E@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <202003231505.59A11B06E@keescook>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 23-M?r 15:12, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:58:18PM -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> > That's not too terrible, I suppose. What would you be thinking for
> > the calls that do use call_int_hook()?
> > 
> > 	rc = call_int_hook(something, something_default, goodnesses);
> > 
> > or embedded in the macro:
> > 
> > 	rc = call_int_hook(something, goodnesses);
> 
> Oh yes, good point. The hook call already knows the name, so:

I learnt this the hard way that IRC that is passed to the
call_int_hook macro is not the same as the default value for a hook

call_int_hook accomdates for a different return value when no hook is
implemented, but it does expect the default value of the hook to be 0
as it compares the return value of the callbacks to 0 instead of the
default value whereas these special cases compare it with the default
value.

For example:

  If we define the default_value of the secid_to_secctx to
  -EOPNOTSUPP, it changes the behaviour and the BPF hook, which
  returns this default value always results in a failure.

  I noticed this when I saw a bunch of messages on my VM:

    audit: error in audit_log_task_context

  which comes from audit_log_task_context and calls
  security_secid_to_secctx which ends up being always denied by BPF.

In anycase, I am still adding the default value in LSM_HOOK and using
them in the following hooks:

 getprocattr -EINVAL
 inode_getsecurity -EOPNOTSUPP
 inode_setsecurity -EOPNOTSUPP
 setprocattr -EINVAL
 task_prctl -ENOSYS
 xfrm_state_pol_flow_match 1

Will send v6 out with these changes.

- KP

> 
> #define call_int_hook(FUNC, ...) ({                        \
>         int RC = FUNC#_default;                            \
> ...
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
> 
>