From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87046C43334 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 13:59:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235146AbiGHN7a (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:59:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59420 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238018AbiGHN73 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:59:29 -0400 Received: from smtp-1908.mail.infomaniak.ch (smtp-1908.mail.infomaniak.ch [IPv6:2001:1600:4:17::1908]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D80E713DD8 for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 06:59:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (unknown [10.4.36.108]) by smtp-3-3000.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LfZdn3qMVzMq01C; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 15:59:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ns3096276.ip-94-23-54.eu (unknown [23.97.221.149]) by smtp-3-0001.mail.infomaniak.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4LfZdn065Qzln2Gm; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 15:59:24 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=digikod.net; s=20191114; t=1657288765; bh=EzX7t3K/O5SpDe7WJRGQski/oO2eNixevg8tUUVZBn0=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZkawuMSttAIT3elovHlY1u4Orxg4jLlbXnylL+jwfww7e41VIQIdnpVhIPZtvy/P5 w1OWzsH+/5khkCtAIyqncvbdjx7WdqQ+o2QOkumY+iuEkcUqSIEihp5FRNy8DliNJO 0FrCDYMsLSU1G7PJJXGQAzUtArsMipCzTeZ54dvQ= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 15:59:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Content-Language: en-US To: "Konstantin Meskhidze (A)" Cc: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, yusongping@huawei.com, anton.sirazetdinov@huawei.com References: <20220621082313.3330667-1-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com> <20220621082313.3330667-3-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com> <0bbbcf21-1e7d-5585-545f-bf89d8ebd527@digikod.net> <7735ae47-9088-be29-2696-c5170031d7c2@huawei.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micka=c3=abl_Sala=c3=bcn?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/17] landlock: refactors landlock_find/insert_rule In-Reply-To: <7735ae47-9088-be29-2696-c5170031d7c2@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org 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 >>> --- >>> >>> 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. > 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?