| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAHc6FU4QnNub8wxLtMKNjEZJjg1sr-+=OqsrB+T9AVnOSWDEnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:28:40 +0200
From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v23 09/22] richacl: Permission check algorithm
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 15:47 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
>> A richacl roughly grants a requested access if the NFSv4 acl in the
>> richacl grants the requested permissions according to the NFSv4
>> permission check algorithm and the file mask that applies to the process
>> includes the requested permissions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>
>> ---
>> fs/richacl.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/richacl.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 129 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/richacl.c b/fs/richacl.c
>> index 056228f..cb0ef3f 100644
>> --- a/fs/richacl.c
>> +++ b/fs/richacl.c
>> @@ -338,3 +338,131 @@ restart:
>> acl->a_flags &= ~(RICHACL_WRITE_THROUGH | RICHACL_MASKED);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richacl_compute_max_masks);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * richacl_permission - richacl permission check algorithm
>> + * @inode: inode to check
>> + * @acl: rich acl of the inode
>> + * @want: requested access (MAY_* flags)
>> + *
>> + * Checks if the current process is granted @mask flags in @acl.
>> + */
>
> nit: there is no @mask parm here. Do you mean @want ?
Yes, thanks.
>> +int
>> +richacl_permission(struct inode *inode, const struct richacl *acl,
>> + int want)
>> +{
>> + const struct richace *ace;
>> + unsigned int mask = richacl_want_to_mask(want);
>> + unsigned int requested = mask, denied = 0;
>> + int in_owning_group = in_group_p(inode->i_gid);
>> + int in_owner_or_group_class = in_owning_group;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A process is
>> + * - in the owner file class if it owns the file,
>> + * - in the group file class if it is in the file's owning group or
>> + * it matches any of the user or group entries, and
>> + * - in the other file class otherwise.
>> + * The file class is only relevant for determining which file mask to
>> + * apply, which only happens for masked acls.
>> + */
>> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) {
>> + if ((acl->a_flags & RICHACL_WRITE_THROUGH) &&
>> + uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid)) {
>> + denied = requested & ~acl->a_owner_mask;
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * When the acl is not masked, there is no need to determine if
>> + * the process is in the group class and we can break out
>> + * earlier of the loop below.
>> + */
>> + in_owner_or_group_class = 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Check if the acl grants the requested access and determine which
>> + * file class the process is in.
>> + */
>> + richacl_for_each_entry(ace, acl) {
>> + unsigned int ace_mask = ace->e_mask;
>> +
>> + if (richace_is_inherit_only(ace))
>> + continue;
>> + if (richace_is_owner(ace)) {
>> + if (!uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid))
>> + continue;
>> + goto entry_matches_owner;
>> + } else if (richace_is_group(ace)) {
>> + if (!in_owning_group)
>> + continue;
>> + } else if (richace_is_unix_user(ace)) {
>> + if (!uid_eq(current_fsuid(), ace->e_id.uid))
>> + continue;
>> + if (uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid))
>> + goto entry_matches_owner;
>> + } else if (richace_is_unix_group(ace)) {
>> + if (!in_group_p(ace->e_id.gid))
>> + continue;
>> + } else
>> + goto entry_matches_everyone;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Apply the group file mask to entries other than owner@ and
>> + * everyone@ or user entries matching the owner. This ensures
>> + * that we grant the same permissions as the acl computed by
>> + * richacl_apply_masks().
>> + *
>> + * Without this restriction, the following richacl would grant
>> + * rw access to processes which are both the owner and in the
>> + * owning group, but not to other users in the owning group,
>> + * which could not be represented without masks:
>> + *
>> + * owner:rw::mask
>> + * group@:rw::allow
>> + */
>> + if ((acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) && richace_is_allow(ace))
>> + ace_mask &= acl->a_group_mask;
>> +
>> +entry_matches_owner:
>> + /* The process is in the owner or group file class. */
>> + in_owner_or_group_class = 1;
>> +
>> +entry_matches_everyone:
>> + /* Check which mask flags the ACE allows or denies. */
>> + if (richace_is_deny(ace))
>> + denied |= ace_mask & mask;
>> + mask &= ~ace_mask;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Keep going until we know which file class
>> + * the process is in.
>> + */
>> + if (!mask && in_owner_or_group_class)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + denied |= mask;
>> +
>> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) {
>> + /*
>> + * The file class a process is in determines which file mask
>> + * applies. Check if that file mask also grants the requested
>> + * access.
>> + */
>> + if (uid_eq(current_fsuid(), inode->i_uid))
>> + denied |= requested & ~acl->a_owner_mask;
>> + else if (in_owner_or_group_class)
>> + denied |= requested & ~acl->a_group_mask;
>> + else {
>> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_WRITE_THROUGH)
>> + denied = requested & ~acl->a_other_mask;
>> + else
>> + denied |= requested & ~acl->a_other_mask;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> +out:
>> + return denied ? -EACCES : 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richacl_permission);
>> diff --git a/include/linux/richacl.h b/include/linux/richacl.h
>> index 3559b2c..be9fb65 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/richacl.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/richacl.h
>> @@ -179,5 +179,6 @@ extern int richacl_masks_to_mode(const struct richacl *);
>> extern unsigned int richacl_mode_to_mask(umode_t);
>> extern unsigned int richacl_want_to_mask(unsigned int);
>> extern void richacl_compute_max_masks(struct richacl *);
>> +extern int richacl_permission(struct inode *, const struct richacl *, int);
>>
>> #endif /* __RICHACL_H */
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Thanks,
Andreas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists