| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:36:14 +0300
From: "Konstantin Meskhidze (A)" <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
CC: <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, <gnoack3000@...il.com>,
<linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, <yusongping@...wei.com>,
<artem.kuzin@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 04/12] landlock: Refactor merge/inherit_ruleset
functions
7/5/2023 1:16 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>
> On 01/07/2023 16:52, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 6/26/2023 9:40 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>
>>> On 15/05/2023 18:13, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>> Refactor merge_ruleset() and inherit_ruleset() functions to support
>>>> new rule types. This patch adds merge_tree() and inherit_tree()
>>>> helpers. They use a specific ruleset's red-black tree according to
>>>> a key type argument.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v10:
>>>> * Refactors merge_tree() function.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v9:
>>>> * None
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v8:
>>>> * Refactors commit message.
>>>> * Minor fixes.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v7:
>>>> * Adds missed lockdep_assert_held it inherit_tree() and merge_tree().
>>>> * Fixes comment.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v6:
>>>> * Refactors merge_ruleset() and inherit_ruleset() functions to support
>>>> new rule types.
>>>> * Renames tree_merge() to merge_tree() (and reorder arguments), and
>>>> tree_copy() to inherit_tree().
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v5:
>>>> * Refactors some logic errors.
>>>> * Formats code with clang-format-14.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v4:
>>>> * None
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> security/landlock/ruleset.c | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>> index deab37838f5b..e4f449fdd6dd 100644
>>>> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>> @@ -302,36 +302,22 @@ static void put_hierarchy(struct landlock_hierarchy *hierarchy)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>>> - struct landlock_ruleset *const src)
>>>> +static int merge_tree(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>>> + struct landlock_ruleset *const src,
>>>> + const enum landlock_key_type key_type)
>>>> {
>>>> struct landlock_rule *walker_rule, *next_rule;
>>>> struct rb_root *src_root;
>>>> int err = 0;
>>>>
>>>> might_sleep();
>>>> - /* Should already be checked by landlock_merge_ruleset() */
>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!src))
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> - /* Only merge into a domain. */
>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!dst || !dst->hierarchy))
>>>> - return -EINVAL;
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&dst->lock);
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&src->lock);
>>>>
>>>> - src_root = get_root(src, LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE);
>>>> + src_root = get_root(src, key_type);
>>>> if (IS_ERR(src_root))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(src_root);
>>>>
>>>> - /* Locks @dst first because we are its only owner. */
>>>> - mutex_lock(&dst->lock);
>>>> - mutex_lock_nested(&src->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>>>> -
>>>> - /* Stacks the new layer. */
>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(src->num_layers != 1 || dst->num_layers < 1)) {
>>>> - err = -EINVAL;
>>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>>> - }
>>>> - dst->access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0];
>>>> -
>>>> /* Merges the @src tree. */
>>>> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule, src_root,
>>>> node) {
>>>> @@ -340,23 +326,52 @@ static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>>> } };
>>>> const struct landlock_id id = {
>>>> .key = walker_rule->key,
>>>> - .type = LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE,
>>>> + .type = key_type,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(walker_rule->num_layers != 1)) {
>>>> - err = -EINVAL;
>>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>>> - }
>>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(walker_rule->layers[0].level != 0)) {
>>>> - err = -EINVAL;
>>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>>> - }
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(walker_rule->num_layers != 1))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(walker_rule->layers[0].level != 0))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> layers[0].access = walker_rule->layers[0].access;
>>>>
>>>> err = insert_rule(dst, id, &layers, ARRAY_SIZE(layers));
>>>> if (err)
>>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>>> + return err;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return err;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>>> + struct landlock_ruleset *const src)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + might_sleep();
>>>> + /* Should already be checked by landlock_merge_ruleset() */
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!src))
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> + /* Only merge into a domain. */
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!dst || !dst->hierarchy))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Locks @dst first because we are its only owner. */
>>>> + mutex_lock(&dst->lock);
>>>> + mutex_lock_nested(&src->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Stacks the new layer. */
>>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(src->num_layers != 1 || dst->num_layers < 1)) {
>>>> + err = -EINVAL;
>>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>> }
>>>> + dst->access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0];
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Merges the @src inode tree. */
>>>> + err = merge_tree(dst, src, LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>>
>>>> out_unlock:
>>>> mutex_unlock(&src->lock);
>>>> @@ -364,43 +379,64 @@ static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>>> return err;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>>>> - struct landlock_ruleset *const child)
>>>> +static int inherit_tree(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>>>> + struct landlock_ruleset *const child,
>>>> + const enum landlock_key_type key_type)
>>>> {
>>>> struct landlock_rule *walker_rule, *next_rule;
>>>> struct rb_root *parent_root;
>>>> int err = 0;
>>>>
>>>> might_sleep();
>>>> - if (!parent)
>>>> - return 0;
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&parent->lock);
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&child->lock);
>>>>
>>>> - parent_root = get_root(parent, LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE);
>>>> + parent_root = get_root(parent, key_type);
>>>> if (IS_ERR(parent_root))
>>>> return PTR_ERR(parent_root);
>>>>
>>>> - /* Locks @child first because we are its only owner. */
>>>> - mutex_lock(&child->lock);
>>>> - mutex_lock_nested(&parent->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>>>> -
>>>> - /* Copies the @parent tree. */
>>>> + /* Copies the @parent inode or network tree. */
>>>> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
>>>> parent_root, node) {
>>>> const struct landlock_id id = {
>>>> .key = walker_rule->key,
>>>> - .type = LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE,
>>>> + .type = key_type,
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> err = insert_rule(child, id, &walker_rule->layers,
>>>> walker_rule->num_layers);
>>>> if (err)
>>>> - goto out_unlock;
>>>> + return err;
>>>> }
>>>> + return err;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>>>> + struct landlock_ruleset *const child)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int err = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + might_sleep();
>>>> + if (!parent)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Locks @child first because we are its only owner. */
>>>> + mutex_lock(&child->lock);
>>>> + mutex_lock_nested(&parent->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Copies the @parent inode tree. */
>>>> + err = inherit_tree(parent, child, LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + goto out_unlock;
>>>>
>>>> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(child->num_layers <= parent->num_layers)) {
>>>> err = -EINVAL;
>>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>> }
>>>> - /* Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space for the new layer. */
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space
>>>> + * for the new layer.
>>>> + */
>>>
>>> Did that get formatted because of clang-format? The original line exceed
>>> the 80 columns limit, but it is not caught by different version of
>>> clang-format I tested. Anyway, we should remove this hunk for now
>>> because it has no link with the current patch.
>>
>> Yep. I format every patch with clnag-format.
>> I will remove this hunk and let it be as it was.
>
> It's weird because clang-format doesn't touch this hunk for me. Which
> version do you use? Do you have any specific configuration?
Sorry for misleading, its my fault. I realized that I had formated it
by myself (more than 80 columns length). You are right that clang-format
does not have to do with it - just checked it. I will remove the hunk.
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists