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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).