Message-ID: <20241005.a69458234f74@gnoack.org>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2024 18:57:55 +0200
From: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>,
	Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>,
	Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>,
	Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>,
	Tahera Fahimi <fahimitahera@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] landlock: Refactor filesystem access mask
 management

On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 04:12:32PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Replace get_raw_handled_fs_accesses() with a generic
> landlock_merge_access_masks(), and replace the get_fs_domain()
> implementation with a call to the new landlock_filter_access_masks()
> helper.  These helpers will also be useful for other types of access.
> 
> Replace struct access_masks with union access_masks that includes a new
> "all" field to simplify mask filtering.
> 
> Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack@...gle.com>
> Cc: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@...wei-partners.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241001141234.397649-2-mic@digikod.net
> ---
>  security/landlock/fs.c       | 21 ++++-----------
>  security/landlock/ruleset.h  | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  security/landlock/syscalls.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> index 7d79fc8abe21..a2ef7d151c81 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> @@ -388,33 +388,22 @@ static bool is_nouser_or_private(const struct dentry *dentry)
>  		unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(d_backing_inode(dentry))));
>  }
>  
> -static access_mask_t
> -get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
> -{
> -	access_mask_t access_dom = 0;
> -	size_t layer_level;
> -
> -	for (layer_level = 0; layer_level < domain->num_layers; layer_level++)
> -		access_dom |=
> -			landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(domain, layer_level);
> -	return access_dom;
> -}
> -
>  static access_mask_t
>  get_handled_fs_accesses(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
>  {
>  	/* Handles all initially denied by default access rights. */
> -	return get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(domain) |
> +	return landlock_merge_access_masks(domain).fs |
>  	       LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_INITIALLY_DENIED;
>  }
>  
>  static const struct landlock_ruleset *
>  get_fs_domain(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
>  {
> -	if (!domain || !get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(domain))
> -		return NULL;
> +	const union access_masks all_fs = {
> +		.fs = ~0,
> +	};
>  
> -	return domain;
> +	return landlock_filter_access_masks(domain, all_fs);
>  }
>  
>  static const struct landlock_ruleset *get_current_fs_domain(void)
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 61bdbc550172..a816042ca8f3 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -41,12 +41,19 @@ static_assert(BITS_PER_TYPE(access_mask_t) >= LANDLOCK_NUM_SCOPE);
>  static_assert(sizeof(unsigned long) >= sizeof(access_mask_t));
>  
>  /* Ruleset access masks. */
> -struct access_masks {
> -	access_mask_t fs : LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS;
> -	access_mask_t net : LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_NET;
> -	access_mask_t scope : LANDLOCK_NUM_SCOPE;
> +union access_masks {
> +	struct {
> +		access_mask_t fs : LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS;
> +		access_mask_t net : LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_NET;
> +		access_mask_t scope : LANDLOCK_NUM_SCOPE;
> +	};
> +	u32 all;
>  };

More of a style remark:

I wonder whether it is worth turning this into a union.

If this is for performance, I do not think is buys you much.  With
optimization enabled, it does not make much of a difference whether
you are doing the & on .all or whether you are doing it on the
individual fields.  (I tried it out with gcc.  The only difference is
that the & on the individual fields will at the end mask only the bits
that belong to these fields.)

At the same time, in most places where struct access_masks is used,
the union is not necessary and might add to the confusion.


>  
> +/* Makes sure all fields are covered. */
> +static_assert(sizeof(((union access_masks *)NULL)->all) ==
> +	      sizeof(union access_masks));
> +
>  typedef u16 layer_mask_t;
>  /* Makes sure all layers can be checked. */
>  static_assert(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask_t) >= LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
> @@ -229,7 +236,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>  			 * layers are set once and never changed for the
>  			 * lifetime of the ruleset.
>  			 */
> -			struct access_masks access_masks[];
> +			union access_masks access_masks[];
>  		};
>  	};
>  };
> @@ -260,6 +267,31 @@ static inline void landlock_get_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset)
>  		refcount_inc(&ruleset->usage);
>  }
>  
> +static inline union access_masks
> +landlock_merge_access_masks(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
> +{
> +	size_t layer_level;
> +	union access_masks matches = {};
> +
> +	for (layer_level = 0; layer_level < domain->num_layers; layer_level++)
> +		matches.all |= domain->access_masks[layer_level].all;
> +
> +	return matches;
> +}
> +
> +static inline const struct landlock_ruleset *
> +landlock_filter_access_masks(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +			     const union access_masks masks)

With this function name, the return type of this function is
unintuitive to me.  Judging by the name, I would have expected a
function that returns a "access_masks" value as well, similar to the
function one above (the remaining access rights after filtering)?

In the places where the result of this function is returned directly,
I find myself jumping back to the function implementation to
understand what this means.

As a constructive suggestion, how about calling this function
differently, e.g.

bool landlock_any_access_rights_handled(
    const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
    struct access_masks masks);

Then the callers who previously did

   return landlock_filter_access_masks(dom, masks);

would now do

   if (landlock_any_access_rights_handled(dom, masks))
       return dom;
   return NULL;

This is more verbose, but IMHO verbose code is not inherently bad,
if it is also clearer.  And it's only two lines more.

> +{
> +	if (!domain)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	if (landlock_merge_access_masks(domain).all & masks.all)
> +		return domain;
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}

Function documentation for both functions would be good :)

> +
>  static inline void
>  landlock_add_fs_access_mask(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  			    const access_mask_t fs_access_mask,
> @@ -295,19 +327,12 @@ landlock_add_scope_mask(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  	ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].scope |= mask;
>  }
>  
> -static inline access_mask_t
> -landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(const struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> -				const u16 layer_level)
> -{
> -	return ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].fs;
> -}
> -
>  static inline access_mask_t
>  landlock_get_fs_access_mask(const struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  			    const u16 layer_level)
>  {
>  	/* Handles all initially denied by default access rights. */
> -	return landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(ruleset, layer_level) |
> +	return ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].fs |
>  	       LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_INITIALLY_DENIED;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index f5a0e7182ec0..c097d356fa45 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int add_rule_path_beneath(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  		return -ENOMSG;
>  
>  	/* Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints. */
> -	mask = landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(ruleset, 0);
> +	mask = ruleset->access_masks[0].fs;
>  	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | mask) != mask)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -- 
> 2.46.1
> 

Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@...il.com>

–Günther

Powered by blists - more mailing lists