| 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: <223e6a19-058e-439e-ef29-a53d086838d9@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 17:05:11 +0300
From: "Konstantin Meskhidze (A)" <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
To: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
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 v6 02/17] landlock: refactors landlock_find/insert_rule
7/8/2022 5:35 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>
> On 08/07/2022 16:14, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>
>>
>> 7/8/2022 4:59 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>
>>> On 08/07/2022 15:10, Konstantin Meskhidze (A) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 7/7/2022 7:44 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 21/06/2022 10:22, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>>>> Adds a new object union to support a socket port
>>>>>> rule type. Refactors landlock_insert_rule() and
>>>>>> landlock_find_rule() to support coming network
>>>>>> modifications. Now adding or searching a rule
>>>>>> in a ruleset depends on a rule_type argument
>>>>>> provided in refactored functions mentioned above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@...wei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since v5:
>>>>>> * Formats code with clang-format-14.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since v4:
>>>>>> * Refactors insert_rule() and create_rule() functions by deleting
>>>>>> rule_type from their arguments list, it helps to reduce useless code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since v3:
>>>>>> * Splits commit.
>>>>>> * Refactors landlock_insert_rule and landlock_find_rule functions.
>>>>>> * Rename new_ruleset->root_inode.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> security/landlock/fs.c | 7 ++-
>>>>>> security/landlock/ruleset.c | 105
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>> security/landlock/ruleset.h | 27 +++++-----
>>>>>> 3 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
>>>>>> index e6da08ed99d1..46aedc2a05a8 100644
>>>>>> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
>>>>>> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
>>>>>> @@ -173,7 +173,8 @@ int landlock_append_fs_rule(struct
>>>>>> landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>>>>>> if (IS_ERR(object))
>>>>>> return PTR_ERR(object);
>>>>>> mutex_lock(&ruleset->lock);
>>>>>> - err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, access_rights);
>>>>>> + err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, 0, access_rights,
>>>>>> + LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH);
>>>>>> mutex_unlock(&ruleset->lock);
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * No need to check for an error because landlock_insert_rule()
>>>>>> @@ -204,7 +205,9 @@ find_rule(const struct landlock_ruleset *const
>>>>>> domain,
>>>>>> inode = d_backing_inode(dentry);
>>>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>> rule = landlock_find_rule(
>>>>>> - domain, rcu_dereference(landlock_inode(inode)->object));
>>>>>> + domain,
>>>>>> + (uintptr_t)rcu_dereference(landlock_inode(inode)->object),
>>>>>> + LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH);
>>>>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>>> return rule;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>>>> index a3fd58d01f09..5f13f8a12aee 100644
>>>>>> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>>>> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>>>>>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset
>>>>>> *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>>>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>>>> refcount_set(&new_ruleset->usage, 1);
>>>>>> mutex_init(&new_ruleset->lock);
>>>>>> - new_ruleset->root = RB_ROOT;
>>>>>> + new_ruleset->root_inode = RB_ROOT;
>>>>>> new_ruleset->num_layers = num_layers;
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * hierarchy = NULL
>>>>>> @@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ static void build_check_rule(void)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static struct landlock_rule *
>>>>>> -create_rule(struct landlock_object *const object,
>>>>>> +create_rule(struct landlock_object *const object_ptr,
>>>>>> + const uintptr_t object_data,
>>>>>> const struct landlock_layer (*const layers)[], const u32
>>>>>> num_layers,
>>>>>> const struct landlock_layer *const new_layer)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> @@ -90,8 +91,15 @@ create_rule(struct landlock_object *const object,
>>>>>> if (!new_rule)
>>>>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>>>> RB_CLEAR_NODE(&new_rule->node);
>>>>>> - landlock_get_object(object);
>>>>>> - new_rule->object = object;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (object_ptr) {
>>>>>> + landlock_get_object(object_ptr);
>>>>>> + new_rule->object.ptr = object_ptr;
>>>>>> + } else if (object_ptr && object_data) {
>>>>>
>>>>> Something is wrong with this second check: else + object_ptr?
>>>>
>>>> Sorry. Do you mean logical error here? I got your point.
>>>> You are right!
>>>>
>>>> I think it must be refactored like this:
>>>>
>>>> if (object_ptr && !object_data) {
>>>> landlock_get_object(object_ptr);
>>>> new_rule->object.ptr = object_ptr;
>>>> } else if (object_ptr && object_data) {
>>>> ...
>>>> }
>>>
>>> There is indeed a logical error but this doesn't fix everything. Please
>>> include my previous suggestion instead.
>>>
>> By the way, in the next commits I have fixed this logic error.
>> Anyway I will refactor this one also. Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Plus, I will add a test for this case.
>>>
>>> That would be great but I don't think this code is reachable from user
>>> space. I think that would require kunit but I may be missing something.
>>> How would you test this?
>>
>> You are correct. I checked it. It's impossible to reach this line from
>> userpace (insert both object_ptr and object_data). But create_rule()
>> must be used carefuly by other developers (if any in future). Do you
>> think if its possible to have some internal kernel tests that could
>> handle this issue?
>
> We can use kunit tests for such kernel functions, but in this case I'm
> not sure what could be tested. I started working on bringing kunit tests
> to Landlock but it's not ready yet. Please list all non-userspace tests
> you can think about.
I'm thinking about ones that we can't reach from the userspace.
I analyzed test coverage logs finding lines that are untouched by the
userspace tests.
Let's discus this list:
1. create_rule(): - insert both object_ptr and object_data.
2. insert_rule(): - insert both object_ptr and object_data.
- insert NULL (*const layers).
- insert layers[0].level != 0.
- insert num_layers != 1.
- insert default rule_type.
3. tree_merge(): - insert default rule_type.
- insert walker_rule->num_layers != 1.
- insert walker_rule->layers[0].level != 0.
4. tree_copy(): - insert default rule_type.
5. merge_ruleset: - insert !dst || !dst->hierarchy.
- insert src->num_layers != 1 ||
dst->num_layers < 1.
6. inherit_ruleset(): - insert child->num_layers <=
parent->num_layers.
- insert parent->hierarchy = NULL.
7. landlock_merge_ruleset(): - insert ruleset = NULL.
- insert parent = ruleset
8. landlock_find_rule(): - insert default rule_type.
Please your opinion?
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists