Re: [RFC]selinux: Improving SELinux read/write performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 16:27 +0900, Yuichi Nakamura wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> As I posted before in selinux list,
> I found big overhead of SELinux in read/write on some CPUs,
> and trying tuning.
> There were discussion in previous threads.
> Part 1:
> http://marc.info/?t=118845343400001&r=1&w=2
> Part 2:
> http://marc.info/?t=118880749800004&r=1&w=2
> 
> I would like to RFC again about this topic.

Thanks for your work on this, as this is clearly an important area to
improve.

> 1. Background
> Look at benchmark result below.
> lmbench simple read/write.
> Big overhead exists especially on SH(SuperH) arch.
> 
> 1) Result for x86(Pentium 4 2.6Ghz), kernel 2.6.22
>                 Base  SELinux  Overhead(%)
> Simple read     1.10  1.24     12.3
> Simple write    1.00  1.14     14.0
> * Base: kernel compiled without SELinux support
> 
> 2) Result for SH(SH4, SH7751R), kernel 2.6.22
>                 Base    SELinux   Overhead(%)
> Simple read     2.39    5.49      130.5
> Simple write    2.07    5.10      146.6
> # This result is a little different from previous threads, 
> # because I changed some kernel configs.
> 
> Overhead more than 100%
> I also found about 70-90% overhead in ARM.
> 
> 2. About patch
> I found a overhead in selinux_file_permission function.
> This is a function that is called in read/write calls, 
> and does SELinux permission check.
> SELinux checks permission both in open and read/write time.
> Stephen Smalley sugessted that we can usually skip permission check 
> in selinux_file_permission.
> By this patch, 
> permission check in selinux_file_permssion is done only when
> - sid of task has changed after file open
> - sid of inode has changed after file open
> - policy load or boolean change happen after file open
> 
> To detect these changes,
> I added entries in file_security struct and saving these values at file open.
> 
> And to save sid of inode at the time of file open,
> I had to add new LSM hook in __dentry_open function.
> 
> 3. Benchmark after applying this patch
> 1) Result for x86(Pentium 4 2.6Ghz), kernel 2.6.22
>                 Base  SELinux  Overhead(%)
> Simple read     1.10  1.12     1.6(Before 12.3)
> Simple write    1.00  1.03     3.6(Before 14.0)
> 
> 2) Result for SH(SH4, SH7751R), kernel 2.6.22
>                 Base    SELinux   Overhead(%)
> Simple read     2.39    2.65      11.1(Before 130.5)
> Simple write    2.07    2.28      10.5(Before 146.6)
> 
> Performance has improved a lot.
> I want comments from community.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yuichi Nakamura<[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/open.c                         |    5 +++
>  include/linux/security.h          |   11 +++++++
>  security/selinux/avc.c            |    5 ++-
>  security/selinux/hooks.c          |   54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  security/selinux/include/objsec.h |    3 ++
>  5 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> diff -purN -X linux-2.6.22/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/avc.c linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/avc.c
> --- linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/avc.c	2007-07-09 08:32:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/avc.c	2007-09-06 14:33:35.000000000 +0900
> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct avc_cache_stats, a
>  #endif
>  
>  static struct avc_cache avc_cache;
> +u32 policy_seqno = 0;
>  static struct avc_callback_node *avc_callbacks;
>  static struct kmem_cache *avc_node_cachep;
>  
> @@ -431,8 +432,10 @@ static int avc_latest_notif_update(int s
>  			ret = -EAGAIN;
>  		}
>  	} else {
> -		if (seqno > avc_cache.latest_notif)
> +		if (seqno > avc_cache.latest_notif) {
>  			avc_cache.latest_notif = seqno;
> +			policy_seqno = seqno;
> +		}

I would have just provided an avc interface for obtaining the seqno,
e.g.
u32 avc_policy_seqno(void)
{
	return avc_cache.latest_notif;
}

>  	}
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&notif_lock, flag);
>  
> diff -purN -X linux-2.6.22/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/hooks.c linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/hooks.c
> --- linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/hooks.c	2007-07-09 08:32:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/hooks.c	2007-09-06 16:08:36.000000000 +0900
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@
>  extern unsigned int policydb_loaded_version;
>  extern int selinux_nlmsg_lookup(u16 sclass, u16 nlmsg_type, u32 *perm);
>  extern int selinux_compat_net;
> +extern u32 policy_seqno;

I think that they frown upon extern declarations in .c files (versus
in .h files), so we don't want to add more - we ultimately should clean
up what we presently have.

>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_SELINUX_DEVELOP
>  int selinux_enforcing = 0;
> @@ -220,6 +221,8 @@ static int file_alloc_security(struct fi
>  
>  	fsec->file = file;
>  	fsec->sid = tsec->sid;
> +	fsec->tsid = tsec->sid;

I'm not sure why we need the separate field here, as fsec->sid already
holds the allocating task SID and doesn't change.

> +	fsec->pseqno = policy_seqno;

Not sure that you want to set the seqno here versus from your new hook,
as it could conceivably change in between.

>  	fsec->fown_sid = tsec->sid;
>  	file->f_security = fsec;
>  
> @@ -2458,7 +2461,7 @@ static int selinux_inode_listsecurity(st
>  
>  /* file security operations */
>  
> -static int selinux_file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
> +static int do_selinux_file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)

Might want to rename for clarity, e.g. 
selinux_revalidate_file_permission or
selinux_file_permission_slow (slow path) or
something similar.

>  {
>  	int rc;
>  	struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> @@ -2480,6 +2483,43 @@ static int selinux_file_permission(struc
>  	return selinux_netlbl_inode_permission(inode, mask);
>  }
>  
> +static int selinux_file_permission(struct file *file, int mask)
> +{
> +	struct inode *inode = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
> +	struct task_security_struct *tsec = current->security;
> +	struct file_security_struct *fsec = file->f_security;
> +	struct inode_security_struct *isec = inode->i_security;
> +
> +	if (!mask) {
> +		/* No permission to check.  Existence test. */
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (tsec->sid != fsec->tsid) {
> +		if (tsec->sid != fsec->sid) {
> +			struct vfsmount *mnt = file->f_path.mnt;
> +			struct dentry *dentry = file->f_path.dentry;
> +			struct avc_audit_data ad;
> +			int rc;
> +			AVC_AUDIT_DATA_INIT(&ad, FS);
> +			ad.u.fs.mnt = mnt;
> +			ad.u.fs.dentry = dentry;
> +			rc = avc_has_perm(tsec->sid, fsec->sid,
> +					  SECCLASS_FD,
> +					  FD__USE,
> +					  &ad);
> +			if (rc)
> +				return rc;
> +		}

Why inline the FD_USE check here given that you are falling back to the
full function call anyway?  I also don't see why you separate this from
the rest of the comparison - I'd just make it something like:
	if (tsec->sid == fsec->sid && isec->sid == fsec->isid &&
	    avc_seqno() == fsec->seqno)
		return selinux_netlbl_inode_permission(inode, mask);
	return selinux_revalidate_file_permission(file, mask);

>  static int selinux_file_alloc_security(struct file *file)
>  {
>  	return file_alloc_security(file);
> @@ -2715,6 +2755,16 @@ static int selinux_file_receive(struct f
>  	return file_has_perm(current, file, file_to_av(file));
>  }
>  
> +static int selinux_dentry_open(struct file *file, int flags)
> +{
> +	struct file_security_struct *fsec;
> +	struct inode_security_struct *isec;
> +	fsec = file->f_security;
> +	isec = file->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_security;
> +	fsec->isid = isec->sid;

Set the seqno here too.  Ideally, it would come straight from the AVC
entry that was used for the open-time check, but that is a bit more
invasive and there will always be a small window there.

> diff -purN -X linux-2.6.22/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/include/objsec.h linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/include/objsec.h
> --- linux-2.6.22.orig/security/selinux/include/objsec.h	2007-07-09 08:32:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.22/security/selinux/include/objsec.h	2007-09-06 14:58:11.000000000 +0900
> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ struct file_security_struct {
>  	struct file *file;              /* back pointer to file object */
>  	u32 sid;              /* SID of open file description */
>  	u32 fown_sid;         /* SID of file owner (for SIGIO) */
> +	u32 tsid;             /* SID of task at the time of file open*/
> +	u32 isid;             /* SID of inode at the time of file open */
> +	u32 pseqno;           /* Policy seqno at the time of file open */

No need for tsid above I think.

> diff -purN -X linux-2.6.22/Documentation/dontdiff linux-2.6.22.orig/include/linux/security.h linux-2.6.22/include/linux/security.h
> --- linux-2.6.22.orig/include/linux/security.h	2007-07-09 08:32:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ linux-2.6.22/include/linux/security.h	2007-09-06 15:22:39.000000000 +0900
> @@ -503,6 +503,11 @@ struct request_sock;
>   *	@file contains the file structure being received.
>   *	Return 0 if permission is granted.
>   *
> + * Security hook for dentry
> + *
> + * @dentry_open
> + *   Check permission or get additional information before opening dentry.
> + *
>   * Security hooks for task operations.
>   *
>   * @task_create:
> @@ -1253,6 +1258,7 @@ struct security_operations {
>  	int (*file_send_sigiotask) (struct task_struct * tsk,
>  				    struct fown_struct * fown, int sig);
>  	int (*file_receive) (struct file * file);
> +	int (*dentry_open)  (struct file *file, int flags);
>  
>  	int (*task_create) (unsigned long clone_flags);
>  	int (*task_alloc_security) (struct task_struct * p);
> @@ -1854,6 +1860,11 @@ static inline int security_file_receive 
>  	return security_ops->file_receive (file);
>  }
>  
> +static inline int security_dentry_open (struct file *file, int flags)
> +{
> +	return security_ops->dentry_open (file, flags);
> +}
> +
>  static inline int security_task_create (unsigned long clone_flags)
>  {
>  	return security_ops->task_create (clone_flags);

Need to also provide the stub definition in the #else case (SECURITY=n)
and a stub function for the dummy security module.

Thanks.

-- 
Stephen Smalley
National Security Agency

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux