Description
Many security tools need to record system calls like execve. Using the Linux audit system for this can have a detrimental performance impact in some cases.
Goals
The goal is to investigate eBPF as an alternative and do some benchmarking to see the impact and how it compares to using the audit subsystem.
Progress
BPF done - traceexec
Resources
This project is part of:
Hack Week 24
Activity
Comments
-
about 1 month ago by jiriwiesner | Reply
If I were to do this task the syscount script from bcc-tools would be my starting point: https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/tools/syscount.py
Similar Projects
Model checking the BPF verifier by shunghsiyu
Project Description
BPF verifier plays a crucial role in securing the system (though less so now that unprivileged BPF is disabled by default in both upstream and SLES), and bugs in the verifier has lead to privilege escalation vulnerabilities in the past (e.g. CVE-2021-3490).
One way to check whether the verifer has bugs to use model checking (a formal verification technique), in other words, build a abstract model of how the verifier operates, and then see if certain condition can occur (e.g. incorrect calculation during value tracking of registers) by giving both the model and condition to a solver.
For the solver I will be using the Z3 SMT solver to do the checking since it provide a Python binding that's relatively easy to use.
Goal for this Hackweek
Learn how to use the Z3 Python binding (i.e. Z3Py) to build a model of (part of) the BPF verifier, probably the part that's related to value tracking using tristate numbers (aka tnum), and then check that the algorithm work as intended.
Resources
- Formal Methods for the Informal Engineer: Tutorial #1 - The Z3 Theorem Prover and its accompanying notebook is a great introduction into Z3
- Has a section specifically on model checking
- Software Verification and Analysis Using Z3 a great example of using Z3 for model checking
- Sound, Precise, and Fast Abstract Interpretation with Tristate Numbers - existing work that use formal verification to prove that the multiplication helper used for value tracking work as intended
- [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier - initial patch set that adds tristate number to the verifier
Model checking the BPF verifier by shunghsiyu
Project Description
BPF verifier plays a crucial role in securing the system (though less so now that unprivileged BPF is disabled by default in both upstream and SLES), and bugs in the verifier has lead to privilege escalation vulnerabilities in the past (e.g. CVE-2021-3490).
One way to check whether the verifer has bugs to use model checking (a formal verification technique), in other words, build a abstract model of how the verifier operates, and then see if certain condition can occur (e.g. incorrect calculation during value tracking of registers) by giving both the model and condition to a solver.
For the solver I will be using the Z3 SMT solver to do the checking since it provide a Python binding that's relatively easy to use.
Goal for this Hackweek
Learn how to use the Z3 Python binding (i.e. Z3Py) to build a model of (part of) the BPF verifier, probably the part that's related to value tracking using tristate numbers (aka tnum), and then check that the algorithm work as intended.
Resources
- Formal Methods for the Informal Engineer: Tutorial #1 - The Z3 Theorem Prover and its accompanying notebook is a great introduction into Z3
- Has a section specifically on model checking
- Software Verification and Analysis Using Z3 a great example of using Z3 for model checking
- Sound, Precise, and Fast Abstract Interpretation with Tristate Numbers - existing work that use formal verification to prove that the multiplication helper used for value tracking work as intended
- [PATCH v5 net-next 00/12] bpf: rewrite value tracking in verifier - initial patch set that adds tristate number to the verifier