| 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: <20150917183722.GC13825@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:37:22 -0400
From: bfields@...ldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
To: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v7 13/41] richacl: Check if an acl is equivalent to a file
mode
On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 12:27:08PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> ACLs are considered equivalent to file modes if they only consist of
> owner@, group@, and everyone@ entries, the owner@ permissions do not
> depend on whether the owner is a member in the owning group, and no
> inheritance flags are set. This test is used to avoid storing richacls
> if the acl can be computed from the file permission bits.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
> ---
> fs/richacl_base.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/richacl.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/richacl_base.c b/fs/richacl_base.c
> index 3163152..106e988 100644
> --- a/fs/richacl_base.c
> +++ b/fs/richacl_base.c
> @@ -379,3 +379,107 @@ richacl_chmod(struct richacl *acl, mode_t mode)
> return clone;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richacl_chmod);
> +
> +/**
> + * richacl_equiv_mode - compute the mode equivalent of @acl
> + *
> + * An acl is considered equivalent to a file mode if it only consists of
> + * owner@, group@, and everyone@ entries and the owner@ permissions do not
> + * depend on whether the owner is a member in the owning group.
> + */
> +int
> +richacl_equiv_mode(const struct richacl *acl, mode_t *mode_p)
> +{
> + mode_t mode = *mode_p;
> +
> + /*
> + * The RICHACE_DELETE_CHILD flag is meaningless for non-directories, so
> + * we ignore it.
> + */
> + unsigned int x = S_ISDIR(mode) ? 0 : RICHACE_DELETE_CHILD;
> + struct {
> + unsigned int allowed;
> + unsigned int defined; /* allowed or denied */
> + } owner = {
> + .defined = RICHACE_POSIX_ALWAYS_ALLOWED |
> + RICHACE_POSIX_OWNER_ALLOWED | x,
> + }, group = {
> + .defined = RICHACE_POSIX_ALWAYS_ALLOWED | x,
> + }, everyone = {
> + .defined = RICHACE_POSIX_ALWAYS_ALLOWED | x,
> + };
> + const struct richace *ace;
> +
> + if (acl->a_flags & ~(RICHACL_WRITE_THROUGH | RICHACL_MASKED))
> + return -1;
> +
> + richacl_for_each_entry(ace, acl) {
> + if (ace->e_flags & ~RICHACE_SPECIAL_WHO)
> + return -1;
Couldn't this just be
if (ace->e_flags != RICHACE_SPECIAL_WHO)
return -1
I guess the only difference is that you're letting the named-user case
through to get caught by the final "else" clause below.... Still, the !=
test seems possibly simpler to me.
--b.
> +
> + if (richace_is_owner(ace) || richace_is_everyone(ace)) {
> + x = ace->e_mask & ~owner.defined;
> + if (richace_is_allow(ace)) {
> + unsigned int group_denied =
> + group.defined & ~group.allowed;
> +
> + if (x & group_denied)
> + return -1;
> + owner.allowed |= x;
> + } else /* if (richace_is_deny(ace)) */ {
> + if (x & group.allowed)
> + return -1;
> + }
> + owner.defined |= x;
> +
> + if (richace_is_everyone(ace)) {
> + x = ace->e_mask;
> + if (richace_is_allow(ace)) {
> + group.allowed |=
> + x & ~group.defined;
> + everyone.allowed |=
> + x & ~everyone.defined;
> + }
> + group.defined |= x;
> + everyone.defined |= x;
> + }
> + } else if (richace_is_group(ace)) {
> + x = ace->e_mask & ~group.defined;
> + if (richace_is_allow(ace))
> + group.allowed |= x;
> + group.defined |= x;
> + } else
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if (group.allowed & ~owner.defined)
> + return -1;
> +
> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_MASKED) {
> + if (acl->a_flags & RICHACL_WRITE_THROUGH) {
> + owner.allowed = acl->a_owner_mask;
> + everyone.allowed = acl->a_other_mask;
> + } else {
> + owner.allowed &= acl->a_owner_mask;
> + everyone.allowed &= acl->a_other_mask;
> + }
> + group.allowed &= acl->a_group_mask;
> + }
> +
> + mode = (mode & ~S_IRWXUGO) |
> + (richacl_mask_to_mode(owner.allowed) << 6) |
> + (richacl_mask_to_mode(group.allowed) << 3) |
> + richacl_mask_to_mode(everyone.allowed);
> +
> + /* Mask flags we can ignore */
> + x = S_ISDIR(mode) ? 0 : RICHACE_DELETE_CHILD;
> +
> + if (((richacl_mode_to_mask(mode >> 6) ^ owner.allowed) & ~x) ||
> + ((richacl_mode_to_mask(mode >> 3) ^ group.allowed) & ~x) ||
> + ((richacl_mode_to_mask(mode) ^ everyone.allowed) & ~x))
> + return -1;
> +
> + *mode_p = mode;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(richacl_equiv_mode);
> diff --git a/include/linux/richacl.h b/include/linux/richacl.h
> index d4a576c..6535ce5 100644
> --- a/include/linux/richacl.h
> +++ b/include/linux/richacl.h
> @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ extern unsigned int richacl_mode_to_mask(mode_t);
> extern unsigned int richacl_want_to_mask(unsigned int);
> extern void richacl_compute_max_masks(struct richacl *);
> extern struct richacl *richacl_chmod(struct richacl *, mode_t);
> +extern int richacl_equiv_mode(const struct richacl *, mode_t *);
>
> /* richacl_inode.c */
> extern int richacl_permission(struct inode *, const struct richacl *, int);
> --
> 2.4.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists