linux-kernel - [PATCH v1 5/9] landlock: Add extra checks when inserting a rule

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 2020 22:34:38 +0100
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Vincent Dagonneau <vincent.dagonneau@....gouv.fr>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 5/9] landlock: Add extra checks when inserting a rule

Make sure that there is always an (allocated) object in each used rules.
This could have prevented the bug fixed with a previous commit.

When the rules from a ruleset are merged in a domain with
landlock_enforce_ruleset_current(2), these new rules should be assigned
to the last layer.  However, when a rule is just extending a ruleset
with landlock_add_rule(2), the number of layers of this updated ruleset
should always be 0.  Checking such use of landlock_insert_rule() could
enable to detect bugs in future developments.

Replace the hardcoded 1 with SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING.

Cc: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
---
 security/landlock/ruleset.c | 17 +++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
index 7654a66cea43..1fb85daeb750 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
@@ -102,6 +102,10 @@ int landlock_insert_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
 
 	might_sleep();
 	lockdep_assert_held(&ruleset->lock);
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!rule->object))
+		return -ENOENT;
+	if (!is_merge && WARN_ON_ONCE(ruleset->nb_layers != 0))
+		return -EINVAL;
 	walker_node = &(ruleset->root.rb_node);
 	while (*walker_node) {
 		struct landlock_rule *const this = rb_entry(*walker_node,
@@ -223,12 +227,7 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset *inherit_ruleset(
 		return new_ruleset;
 
 	mutex_lock(&new_ruleset->lock);
-	mutex_lock_nested(&parent->lock, 1);
-	new_ruleset->nb_layers = parent->nb_layers;
-	new_ruleset->fs_access_mask = parent->fs_access_mask;
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy);
-	get_hierarchy(parent->hierarchy);
-	new_ruleset->hierarchy->parent = parent->hierarchy;
+	mutex_lock_nested(&parent->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
 
 	/* Copies the @parent tree. */
 	rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
@@ -237,6 +236,12 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset *inherit_ruleset(
 		if (err)
 			goto out_unlock;
 	}
+	new_ruleset->nb_layers = parent->nb_layers;
+	new_ruleset->fs_access_mask = parent->fs_access_mask;
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy);
+	get_hierarchy(parent->hierarchy);
+	new_ruleset->hierarchy->parent = parent->hierarchy;
+
 	mutex_unlock(&parent->lock);
 	mutex_unlock(&new_ruleset->lock);
 	return new_ruleset;
-- 
2.29.2