bpf: Verify signed loader metadata at load time

A signed gen_loader program carries the programs, maps and relocations
it installs in a metadata array map. The loader instructions are covered
by the PKCS#7 signature, but the metadata map is not: Today the loader
compares the map contents from within BPF against a hash baked into its
(signed) instructions, using the kernel-cached map hash. The kernel
itself never actually attests that the metadata the loader installs is
the metadata that was signed.

This split is the core of the long-standing objection to the BPF signing
scheme from the LSM / integrity side: the integrity check of a light
skeleton only completes once the loader program runs, that is, after the
security_bpf_prog_load() hook, so at admission time an LSM observes a
program whose payload has not yet been verified. Auditing the chain
link is also not a purely cryptographic operation: whoever signs or
reviews an lskel has to disassemble the loader's preamble to convince
themselves that the embedded hash check is present and correct [0][1].
Two acceptable fixes were identified in those threads: Complete the
integrity check before the admission hook fires, or add a second hook
that collects the verification result after the loader ran [2]. Covering
both the loader and its maps directly with the PKCS#7 signature is what
Blaise Boscaccy's patchsets proposed in several forms. Let's implement
the former, without growing the UAPI, and in particular as a single
unified scheme where the signature spans the raw bytes rather than
derived hashes.

A signed loader binds its metadata map(s) through the existing fd_array,
and an exclusive map is already bound to a program digest (excl_prog_hash).
So when a signature is present, collect the exclusive maps from fd_array
and append their frozen contents to the instructions before verification:
The signature now covers insns || metadata_0 || metadata_1 || [...] in
the fd_array order, and verification completes in bpf_check(), once the
fd_array maps are resolved into used_maps, before the LSM admission hook
and the rest of verification. A program is either BPF_SIG_UNSIGNED or
BPF_SIG_VERIFIED, with nothing in between. While folding the fd_array
maps, a non-exclusive map bound to a signed program is rejected, so every
map folded into the signature is exclusive. A signed loader that fails
to cover its metadata thus does not load, and BPF_SIG_VERIFIED always
means the instructions and every exclusive map are authentic. The maps
must be frozen so the hashed bytes cannot change before the loader runs;
the map <-> program digest binding is enforced by the verifier for every
used map. Binding maps through fd_array_cnt makes the verifier resolve
and excl-check them (excl_prog_sha vs prog->digest) before it would
otherwise compute the digest, so compute prog->digest up front in
bpf_check(), over the unmodified instructions the signature covers, for
a load that folds metadata.

Unsigned programs are not affected by the signature path; for them the
LSM admission hook merely moves below fd_array resolution, with minimal
bounded work in between. Note, signed loaders generated by older libbpf/
bpftool versions need to be regenerated; some of the recent fixes we've
had on the signed loader side require the latter already to close gaps.

Finally, some remarks around the security_bpf_prog_load() placement
given there was discussion on whether a new hook is needed or the existing
security_bpf_prog() hook should be reused [3]: For a new hook it would
mean that just for loading a single BPF program it has to pass through
four layers of LSM hooks:

  1) security_bpf (cmd=PROG_LOAD): for gating various bpf subcmds
  2) security_bpf_prog_load: historical admission hook (CAP/token,
     prog_type, attach point), pre-verification
  3) security_bpf_prog_verify_signature: newly asked admission hook,
     same role as 2), plus the BPF signature verdict
  4) security_bpf_prog: gate handing the prog fd back to userspace,
     verification done & signature verified

The use-cases of 2) and 3) conflate, thus BPF community prefers to just
keep a total of 3 LSM hooks (as-is today): 3) makes 2) incoherent given
they are the /same class/ of hook, that is, access-control admission on
the load and split only by _what_ they can see. Worse, with the split,
for a signed BPF program security_bpf_prog_load 2) admits a program whose
signature has not been checked, so a policy gating at 2) is structurally
unable to express "admit only verified" and every such policy is forced
onto 3) *anyway*. In other words, one doesn't get two complementary hooks,
but rather, one real admission hook aka 3) plus a now-degraded /legacy/
hook 2) that can't answer the question operators actually want to ask.

Reusing security_bpf_prog() 4) for admission is no alternative either:
it fires only after the entire verifier (and JIT) pipeline ran, so
denying a not-yet-verified program at that point burns exactly the
work a denial is supposed to avoid, and by then the program has an id
assigned and the kallsyms/perf/audit load events fired. Policies are
free to also consume the signature verdict at 4), but admission control
belongs into security_bpf_prog_load(). Hence the latter remains the only
admission hook, merely moved past signature verification; with moving
large allocations further down into the BPF verifier, there is now only
minimal work between the old and new location: The preparation work in
bpf_check() is reordered such that only the minimally necessary setup
happens up front: Allocating the env, initializing the verifier log and
resolving the fd_array that a signed BPF metadata map needs. The worst
case allocation up until security_bpf_prog_load() is ~90K which is the
env itself (~54K) plus the continuous fd_array cache (at most 32K). The
insn_aux_data array is moved into a later stage in the verification.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/2f71d6c03698eb17d51f7247efde777627ee578a.camel@HansenPartnership.com [0]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ecf0521ed302db672672ebfbc670ecfba36a6e00.camel@HansenPartnership.com [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/88703f00d5b7a779728451008626efa45e42db3d.camel@HansenPartnership.com [2]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/DJOFY21DYUI4.19WKQ3NPZ4H5R@gmail.com [3]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20260708075343.358712-3-daniel@iogearbox.net
Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>