[RFC PATCH v4 03/15] landlock: landlock_find/insert_rule refactoring

[Konstantin Meskhidze]

3/22/2022 4:24 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
> 
> On 22/03/2022 13:33, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3/18/2022 9:33 PM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>
>>> On 17/03/2022 15:29, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3/16/2022 11:27 AM, Mickaël Salaün пишет:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/03/2022 14:44, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>>>>>> A new object union added to support a socket port
>>>>>> rule type. To support it landlock_insert_rule() and
>>>>>> landlock_find_rule() were refactored. 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 at huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>>> @@ -156,26 +166,38 @@ static void build_check_ruleset(void)
>>>>>>    * access rights.
>>>>>>    */
>>>>>>   static int insert_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>>>>>> -        struct landlock_object *const object,
>>>>>> +        struct landlock_object *const object_ptr,
>>>>>> +        const uintptr_t object_data,
>>>
>>> Can you move rule_type here for this function and similar ones? It 
>>> makes sense to group object-related arguments.
>>
>>   Just to group them together, not putting rule_type in the end?
> 
> Yes

   Ok. Got it.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>>> @@ -465,20 +501,28 @@ struct landlock_ruleset 
>>>>>> *landlock_merge_ruleset(
>>>>>>    */
>>>>>>   const struct landlock_rule *landlock_find_rule(
>>>>>>           const struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>>>>>> -        const struct landlock_object *const object)
>>>>>> +        const uintptr_t object_data, const u16 rule_type)
>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>       const struct rb_node *node;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -    if (!object)
>>>>>> +    if (!object_data)
>>>>>
>>>>> object_data can be 0. You need to add a test with such value.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to be sure that this change cannot affect the current FS code.
>>>>
>>>>   I got it. I will refactor it.
>>>
>>> Well, 0 means a port 0, which might not be correct, but this check 
>>> should not be performed by landlock_merge_ruleset().
>>>
>>   Do you mean landlock_find_rule()?? Cause this check is not
>>   performed in landlock_merge_ruleset().
> 
> Yes, I was thinking about landlock_find_rule(). If you run your tests 
> with the patch I proposed, you'll see that one of these tests will fail 
> (when port equal 0). When creating a new network rule, 
> add_rule_net_service() should check if the port value is valid. However, 
> the above `if (!object_data)` is not correct anymore.
> 
> The remaining question is: should we need to accept 0 as a valid TCP 
> port? Can it be used? How does the kernel handle it?

  I agree that must be a check for port 0 in add_rule_net_service(), 
cause unlike most port numbers, port 0 is a reserved port in TCP/IP 
networking, meaning that it should not be used in TCP or UDP messages.
Also network traffic sent across the internet to hosts listening on port 
0 might be generated from network attackers or accidentally by 
applications programmed incorrectly.
Source: https://www.lifewire.com/port-0-in-tcp-and-udp-818145

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>           return NULL;
>>>>>> -    node = ruleset->root.rb_node;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    switch (rule_type) {
>>>>>> +    case LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH:
>>>>>> +        node = ruleset->root_inode.rb_node;
>>>>>> +        break;
>>>>>> +    default:
>>>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a bug. There is no check for such value. You need to check 
>>>>> and update all call sites to catch such errors. Same for all new 
>>>>> use of ERR_PTR().
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I did not get your point.
>>>> Do you mean I should check the correctness of rule_type in above 
>>>> function which calls landlock_find_rule() ??? Why can't I add such 
>>>> check here?
>>>
>>> landlock_find_rule() only returns NULL or a valid pointer, not an error.
>>
>>    What about incorrect rule_type?? Return NULL? Or final rule_checl 
>> must be in upper function?
> 
> This case should never happen anyway. You should return NULL and call 
> WARN_ON_ONCE(1) just before. The same kind of WARN_ON_ONCE(1) call 
> should be part of all switch/cases of rule_type (except the two valid 
> values of course).

  Ok. I got it. Thanks.
> .