[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2cdd23ed-6184-3264-cf1d-98930f59539d@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 16:42:07 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yusongping@...wei.com,
anton.sirazetdinov@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 07/15] landlock: add support network rules
On 19/05/2022 11:27, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>
>
> 5/17/2022 11:27 AM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
[...]
>>>
>>> @@ -275,21 +281,17 @@ static int get_path_from_fd(const s32 fd,
>>> struct path *const path)
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int add_rule_path_beneath(const int ruleset_fd, const void
>>> *const rule_attr)
>>> +static int add_rule_path_beneath(struct landlock_ruleset *const
>>> ruleset,
>>> + const void *const rule_attr)
>>> {
>>> struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
>>> struct path path;
>>> - struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>>> int res, err;
>>> -
>>> - /* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
>>> - ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>>> - if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>>> - return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>>> + u32 mask;
>>>
>>> /* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
>>> res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
>>> - sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
>>> + sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
>>> if (res)
>>> return -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> @@ -298,32 +300,26 @@ static int add_rule_path_beneath(const int
>>> ruleset_fd, const void *const rule_at
>>> * are ignored in path walks.
>>> */
>>> if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
>>> - err = -ENOMSG;
>>> - goto out_put_ruleset;
>>> + return -ENOMSG;
>>> }
>>> /*
>>> * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
>>> * (ruleset->access_masks[0] is automatically upgraded to
>>> 64-bits).
>>> */
>>> - if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access |
>>> - landlock_get_fs_access_mask(ruleset, 0)) !=
>>> - landlock_get_fs_access_mask(ruleset, 0)) {
>>> - err = -EINVAL;
>>> - goto out_put_ruleset;
>>> - }
>>> + mask = landlock_get_fs_access_mask(ruleset, 0);
>>> + if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | mask) != mask)
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> /* Gets and checks the new rule. */
>>> err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
>>> if (err)
>>> - goto out_put_ruleset;
>>> + return err;
>>>
>>> /* Imports the new rule. */
>>> err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
>>> path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>>> path_put(&path);
>>>
>>> -out_put_ruleset:
>>> - landlock_put_ruleset(ruleset);
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -360,6 +356,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>>> const int, ruleset_fd, const enum landlock_rule_type,
>>> rule_type,
>>> const void __user *const, rule_attr, const __u32, flags)
>>> {
>>> + struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>>> int err;
>>>
>>> if (!landlock_initialized)
>>> @@ -369,14 +366,20 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>>> if (flags)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> + /* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
>>> + ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>>> + return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>>
>> This shouldn't be part of this patch.
>>
> I agree. I will move it into another patch.
To be clear, it is kind of a partial revert of patch 5/15.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists