Re: [PATCH v5 05/15] landlock: landlock_add_rule syscall refactoring

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

You can rename the subject to "landlock: Refactor landlock_add_rule()"


On 16/05/2022 17:20, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> Landlock_add_rule syscall was refactored to support new
> rule types in future Landlock versions. Add_rule_path_beneath()

nit: add_rule_path_beneath(), not Add_rule_path_beneath()

> helper was added to support current filesystem rules. It is called
> by the switch case.

You can rephrase (all commit messages) in the present form:

Refactor the landlock_add_rule() syscall with add_rule_path_beneath() 
to support new…

Refactor the landlock_add_rule() syscall to easily support for a new 
rule type in a following commit. The new add_rule_path_beneath() helper 
supports current filesystem rules.


> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes since v3:
> * Split commit.
> * Refactoring landlock_add_rule syscall.
> 
> Changes since v4:
> * Refactoring add_rule_path_beneath() and landlock_add_rule() functions
> to optimize code usage.
> * Refactoring base_test.c seltest: adds LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH
> rule type in landlock_add_rule() call.
> 
> ---
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c                 | 105 ++++++++++---------
>   tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c |   4 +-
>   2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index 1db799d1a50b..412ced6c512f 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -274,67 +274,23 @@ static int get_path_from_fd(const s32 fd, struct path *const path)
>   	return err;
>   }
> 
> -/**
> - * sys_landlock_add_rule - Add a new rule to a ruleset
> - *
> - * @ruleset_fd: File descriptor tied to the ruleset that should be extended
> - *		with the new rule.
> - * @rule_type: Identify the structure type pointed to by @rule_attr (only
> - *             LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH for now).
> - * @rule_attr: Pointer to a rule (only of type &struct
> - *             landlock_path_beneath_attr for now).
> - * @flags: Must be 0.
> - *
> - * This system call enables to define a new rule and add it to an existing
> - * ruleset.
> - *
> - * Possible returned errors are:
> - *
> - * - EOPNOTSUPP: Landlock is supported by the kernel but disabled at boot time;
> - * - EINVAL: @flags is not 0, or inconsistent access in the rule (i.e.
> - *   &landlock_path_beneath_attr.allowed_access is not a subset of the
> - *   ruleset handled accesses);
> - * - ENOMSG: Empty accesses (e.g. &landlock_path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> - * - EBADF: @ruleset_fd is not a file descriptor for the current thread, or a
> - *   member of @rule_attr is not a file descriptor as expected;
> - * - EBADFD: @ruleset_fd is not a ruleset file descriptor, or a member of
> - *   @rule_attr is not the expected file descriptor type;
> - * - EPERM: @ruleset_fd has no write access to the underlying ruleset;
> - * - EFAULT: @rule_attr inconsistency.
> - */
> -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)
> +static int add_rule_path_beneath(const int ruleset_fd, const void *const rule_attr)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
>   	struct path path;
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>   	int res, err;
> 
> -	if (!landlock_initialized)
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> -
> -	/* No flag for now. */
> -	if (flags)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
>   	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */

Like I already said, this needs to stay in landlock_add_rule(). I think 
there is some inconsistencies with other patches that rechange this 
part. Please review your patches and make clean patches that don't 
partially revert the previous ones.


>   	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>   	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>   		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> 
> -	if (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> -		err = -EINVAL;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> -	}
> -
>   	/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
>   	res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> -			     sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> -	if (res) {
> -		err = -EFAULT;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> -	}
> +				sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> +	if (res)
> +		return -EFAULT;
> 
>   	/*
>   	 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> @@ -370,6 +326,59 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule, const int, ruleset_fd,
>   	return err;
>   }
> 
> +/**
> + * sys_landlock_add_rule - Add a new rule to a ruleset
> + *
> + * @ruleset_fd: File descriptor tied to the ruleset that should be extended
> + *		with the new rule.
> + * @rule_type: Identify the structure type pointed to by @rule_attr (only
> + *             LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH for now).
> + * @rule_attr: Pointer to a rule (only of type &struct
> + *             landlock_path_beneath_attr for now).
> + * @flags: Must be 0.
> + *
> + * This system call enables to define a new rule and add it to an existing
> + * ruleset.
> + *
> + * Possible returned errors are:
> + *
> + * - EOPNOTSUPP: Landlock is supported by the kernel but disabled at boot time;
> + * - EINVAL: @flags is not 0, or inconsistent access in the rule (i.e.
> + *   &landlock_path_beneath_attr.allowed_access is not a subset of the rule's
> + *   accesses);
> + * - ENOMSG: Empty accesses (e.g. &landlock_path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> + * - EBADF: @ruleset_fd is not a file descriptor for the current thread, or a
> + *   member of @rule_attr is not a file descriptor as expected;
> + * - EBADFD: @ruleset_fd is not a ruleset file descriptor, or a member of
> + *   @rule_attr is not the expected file descriptor type (e.g. file open
> + *   without O_PATH);
> + * - EPERM: @ruleset_fd has no write access to the underlying ruleset;
> + * - EFAULT: @rule_attr inconsistency.
> + */
> +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)
> +{
> +	int err;
> +
> +	if (!landlock_initialized)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	/* No flag for now. */
> +	if (flags)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	switch (rule_type) {
> +	case LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH:
> +		err = add_rule_path_beneath(ruleset_fd, rule_attr);
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		err = -EINVAL;
> +		break;
> +	}
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
>   /* Enforcement */
> 
>   /**
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
> index da9290817866..0c4c3a538d54 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
> @@ -156,11 +156,11 @@ TEST(add_rule_checks_ordering)
>   	ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
> 
>   	/* Checks invalid flags. */
> -	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(-1, 0, NULL, 1));
> +	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(-1, LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH, NULL, 1));

This must not be changed! I specifically added these tests to make sure 
no one change the argument ordering checks…


>   	ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
> 
>   	/* Checks invalid ruleset FD. */
> -	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(-1, 0, NULL, 0));
> +	ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_add_rule(-1, LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH, NULL, 0));
>   	ASSERT_EQ(EBADF, errno);
> 
>   	/* Checks invalid rule type. */
> --
> 2.25.1
>