Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance)

From	Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance)
Date	2016-08-27 23:20 +0200
Message-ID	<saTbb-1cE-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <sayq5-56V-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <saMCJ-5AF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <saQdk-7Pu-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <saRCp-9a-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <saSI9-NY-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 27/08/2016 22:43, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 09:35:14PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>> On 27/08/2016 20:06, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:06:38PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>>>> As said above, Landlock will not run an eBPF programs when not strictly
>>>> needed. Attaching to a cgroup will have the same performance impact as
>>>> attaching to a process hierarchy.
>>>
>>> Having a prog per cgroup per lsm_hook is the only scalable way I
>>> could come up with. If you see another way, please propose.
>>> current->seccomp.landlock_prog is not the answer.
>>
>> Hum, I don't see the difference from a performance point of view between
>> a cgroup-based or a process hierarchy-based system.
>>
>> Maybe a better option should be to use an array of pointers with N
>> entries, one for each supported hook, instead of a unique pointer list?
> 
> yes, clearly array dereference is faster than link list walk.
> Now the question is where to keep this prog_array[num_lsm_hooks] ?
> Since we cannot keep it inside task_struct, we have to allocate it.
> Every time the task is creted then. What to do on the fork? That
> will require changes all over. Then the obvious optimization would be
> to share this allocated array of prog pointers across multiple tasks...
> and little by little this new facility will look like cgroup.
> Hence the suggestion to put this array into cgroup from the start.

I see your point :)

> 
>> Anyway, being able to attach an LSM hook program to a cgroup thanks to
>> the new BPF_PROG_ATTACH seems a good idea (while keeping the possibility
>> to use a process hierarchy). The downside will be to handle an LSM hook
>> program which is not triggered by a seccomp-filter, but this should be
>> needed anyway to handle interruptions.
> 
> what do you mean 'not triggered by seccomp' ?
> You're not suggesting that this lsm has to enable seccomp to be functional?
> imo that's non starter due to overhead.

Yes, for now, it is triggered by a new seccomp filter return value
RET_LANDLOCK, which can take a 16-bit value called cookie. This must not
be needed but could be useful to bind a seccomp filter security policy
with a Landlock one. Waiting for Kees's point of view…

Thread

[RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-25 12:50 +0200
  Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-25 13:20 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-25 16:50 +0200
      Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-08-26 15:00 +0200
      Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-26 16:30 +0200
        Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> - 2016-08-26 18:00 +0200
  Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 04:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-26 17:20 +0200
      Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 01:10 +0200
        Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-27 09:40 +0200
          Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 20:20 +0200
            Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-28 10:20 +0200
        Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 16:20 +0200
          Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 20:10 +0200
            Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 21:40 +0200
              Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 22:50 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 23:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-28 10:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-28 11:50 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-30 21:00 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-30 22:40 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 23:00 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-30 23:50 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 03:40 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (performance) Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-08-31 05:30 +0200
        Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (netfilter match) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 16:30 +0200
          Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (netfilter match) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 20:40 +0200
        Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 16:40 +0200
          Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 20:30 +0200
            Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 22:00 +0200
              Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 23:00 +0200
                Re: [RFC v2 09/10] landlock: Handle cgroups (program types) Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> - 2016-08-27 23:20 +0200

csiph-web