From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1B7C433EF for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:11:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241471AbiBOQLy (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:11:54 -0500 Received: from mxb-00190b01.gslb.pphosted.com ([23.128.96.19]:42022 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241575AbiBOQLV (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:11:21 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C966ACE91D for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id h5so717027ioj.3 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:11:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uya3VrJ5mbeW5e3EiyZomdfwW6pYC+/8k7L0vXEy/64=; b=GqhrTd29C1Fa/GF7XdeyaZQ3hqUrBB2h17CHBFffHv2hxDx4zjmbEz0vOyg0Iq6R4M 2H7TFNA3sVqU8hkGQKByqZzQE7IH19x0/irG56NJvKU+wpiHH9Dv0RwN43FfYB3shghc QMqwnn6TGVnovhyQd07APJlJB7dev7UiXwUtc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Uya3VrJ5mbeW5e3EiyZomdfwW6pYC+/8k7L0vXEy/64=; b=gx9CtzNZJ2i3kdylPROMYTJ2oxhn+JNVY4SG2JTtmRt1Dyb8n89sccTr0nFlhwBgx3 rLJAu77dBo+R3mSTCIaw29TKp+UHTHDDF5ajo3xsJ+xDAqAUFIhoydnH2EYMfdqsGAJr 8oUqn0h+2jgZt00GzYq0hXy+bVD3hBWJyIm3auT2WFIIRnIGdJIbMqihtEgccy46hPaj UaAD/teeCKktoeFOCfMLOx8d2zlmHmF8xEy7vLI8lQjopMjfMYtCgFIe+OdC9Jemt4g2 dpD+ElXM+q7dqQhmqrgVNI5/fCB2mx2VsNAGkc+S4o8PCci7Ai+S4oGMF3In81zUrdxv Vjbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oYtVeZH7vjgaVvkLy4bHY+1lDrKnfrzkQgF+cMhHFhkdWuh+g LZiqtkPXc0p9btRz2ACJ979O0w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwNMQ+hD4yYnX67fbKxMkuWIh4ikYUTO3MVI4i6Lb6x2R7QnWChrXVehVMDRoy3LOMo6wasHA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:6bb:: with SMTP id d27mr3009674jad.231.1644941467203; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.128] ([71.205.29.0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l2sm5384520ilv.66.2022.02.15.08.11.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:11:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] selftests/bpf: Add test for bpf_lsm_kernel_read_file() To: Roberto Sassu , zohar@linux.ibm.com, shuah@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org, revest@chromium.org Cc: linux-integrity@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan References: <20220215124042.186506-1-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> <20220215124042.186506-7-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> From: Shuah Khan Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 09:11:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20220215124042.186506-7-roberto.sassu@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/15/22 5:40 AM, Roberto Sassu wrote: > Test the ability of bpf_lsm_kernel_read_file() to call the sleepable > functions bpf_ima_inode_hash() or bpf_ima_file_hash() to obtain a > measurement of a loaded IMA policy. > > Signed-off-by: Roberto Sassu > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ima_setup.sh | 2 ++ > .../selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_ima.c | 3 +- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++--- > 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ima_setup.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ima_setup.sh > index 8e62581113a3..82530f19f85a 100755 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ima_setup.sh > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/ima_setup.sh > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ setup() > > ensure_mount_securityfs > echo "measure func=BPRM_CHECK fsuuid=${mount_uuid}" > ${IMA_POLICY_FILE} > + echo "measure func=BPRM_CHECK fsuuid=${mount_uuid}" > ${mount_dir}/policy_test > } > > cleanup() { > @@ -74,6 +75,7 @@ run() > local mount_dir="${tmp_dir}/mnt" > local copied_bin_path="${mount_dir}/$(basename ${TEST_BINARY})" > > + echo ${mount_dir}/policy_test > ${IMA_POLICY_FILE} > exec "${copied_bin_path}" > } > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_ima.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_ima.c > index 62bf0e830453..c4a62d7b70df 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_ima.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/test_ima.c > @@ -97,8 +97,9 @@ void test_test_ima(void) > /* > * 1 sample with use_ima_file_hash = false > * 2 samples with use_ima_file_hash = true (./ima_setup.sh, /bin/true) > + * 1 sample with use_ima_file_hash = true (IMA policy) > */ > - ASSERT_EQ(err, 3, "num_samples_or_err"); > + ASSERT_EQ(err, 4, "num_samples_or_err"); > ASSERT_NEQ(ima_hash_from_bpf, 0, "ima_hash"); > > close_clean: > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c > index 9bb63f96cfc0..9b4c03f30a1c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/ima.c > @@ -20,8 +20,7 @@ char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"; > > bool use_ima_file_hash; > > -SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds") > -void BPF_PROG(ima, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > +static void ima_test_common(struct file *file) > { > u64 ima_hash = 0; > u64 *sample; > @@ -31,10 +30,10 @@ void BPF_PROG(ima, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > pid = bpf_get_current_pid_tgid() >> 32; > if (pid == monitored_pid) { > if (!use_ima_file_hash) > - ret = bpf_ima_inode_hash(bprm->file->f_inode, &ima_hash, > + ret = bpf_ima_inode_hash(file->f_inode, &ima_hash, > sizeof(ima_hash)); > else > - ret = bpf_ima_file_hash(bprm->file, &ima_hash, > + ret = bpf_ima_file_hash(file, &ima_hash, > sizeof(ima_hash)); > if (ret < 0 || ima_hash == 0) Is this considered an error? Does it make sense for this test to be void type and not return the error to its callers? One of the callers below seems to care for return values. > return; > @@ -49,3 +48,24 @@ void BPF_PROG(ima, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > > return; > } > + > +SEC("lsm.s/bprm_committed_creds") > +void BPF_PROG(ima, struct linux_binprm *bprm) > +{ > + ima_test_common(bprm->file); > +} > + > +SEC("lsm.s/kernel_read_file") > +int BPF_PROG(kernel_read_file, struct file *file, enum kernel_read_file_id id, > + bool contents) > +{ > + if (!contents) > + return 0; > + > + if (id != READING_POLICY) > + return 0; > + > + ima_test_common(file); This one here. > + > + return 0; > +} > thanks, -- Shuah