From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@oracle.com>,
Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, selinux@tycho.nsa.gov
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] selinux: avoid nf hooks overhead when not needed
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 00:14:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160406221445.GA26807@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhS6aJdPR6xTH2-ehikS5qvj6jFbZAUtzoBXp+WC9Ugi=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:51 AM, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Currently, selinux always registers iptables POSTROUTING hooks regarless of
> > the running policy needs for any action to be performed by them.
> >
> > Even the socket_sock_rcv_skb() is always registered, but it can result in a no-op
> > depending on the current policy configuration.
> >
> > The above invocations in the kernel datapath are cause of measurable
> > overhead in networking performance test.
> >
> > This patch series adds explicit notification for netlabel status change
> > (other relevant status change, like xfrm and secmark, are already notified to
> > LSM) and use this information in selinux to register the above hooks only when
> > the current status makes them relevant, deregistering them when no-op
> >
> > Avoiding the LSM hooks overhead, in netperf UDP_STREAM test with small packets,
> > gives about 5% performance improvement on rx and about 8% on tx.
>
> [NOTE: added the SELinux mailing list to the CC line, please include
> when submitting SELinux patches]
>
> While I appreciate the patch and the work that went into development
> and testing, I'm going to reject this patch on the grounds that it
> conflicts with work we've just started thinking about which should
> bring some tangible security benefit.
>
> The recent addition of post-init read only memory opens up some
> interesting possibilities for SELinux and LSMs in general, the thing
> which we've just started looking at is marking the LSM hook structure
> read only after init. There are some complicating factors for
> SELinux, but I'm confident those can be resolved, and from what I can
> tell marking the hooks read only will have no effect on other LSMs.
> While marking the LSM hook structure doesn't directly affect the
> SELinux netfilter hooks, once we remove the ability to deregister the
> LSM hooks we will have no need to support deregistering netfilter
> hooks and I expect we will drop that functionality as well to help
> decrease the risk of tampering.
netfilter hooks are per namespace -- so there is hook unregister when
netns is destroyed.
Do you think it makes sense to rework the patch to delay registering
of the netfiler hooks until the system is in a state where they're
needed, without the 'unregister' aspect?
Ideally this would even be per netns -- in perfect world we would
be able to make it so that a new netns are created with an empty
hook list.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-06 22:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-06 9:51 [RFC PATCH 0/2] selinux: avoid nf hooks overhead when not needed Paolo Abeni
2016-04-06 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] security: add hook for netlabel status change notification Paolo Abeni
2016-04-06 9:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] selinux: implement support for dynamic net hook [de-]registration Paolo Abeni
2016-04-06 22:32 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-06 12:33 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] selinux: avoid nf hooks overhead when not needed Paul Moore
2016-04-06 14:03 ` Paolo Abeni
2016-04-06 14:07 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-06 18:23 ` David Miller
2016-04-06 18:36 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-06 19:39 ` David Miller
2016-04-06 20:07 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-06 22:14 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2016-04-06 23:15 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-06 23:45 ` Florian Westphal
2016-04-07 18:55 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-12 8:52 ` Paolo Abeni
2016-04-12 13:57 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-13 11:57 ` Paolo Abeni
2016-04-13 15:06 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-14 22:53 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-15 9:38 ` Paolo Abeni
2016-04-15 15:54 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-06 21:37 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-06 21:43 ` Paul Moore
2016-04-06 21:43 ` Casey Schaufler
2016-04-07 7:59 ` Paolo Abeni
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 \
--in-reply-to=20160406221445.GA26807@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=agruenba@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=james.l.morris@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=selinux@tycho.nsa.gov \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.