[PATCH v4 1/3] landlock: Refactor filesystem access mask management

Günther Noack gnoack at google.com
Sat Nov 9 18:21:04 UTC 2024


On Sat, Nov 09, 2024 at 12:08:54PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> Replace get_raw_handled_fs_accesses() with a generic
> landlock_merge_access_masks(), and replace get_fs_domain() with a
> generic landlock_match_ruleset().  These helpers will also be useful for
> other types of access.
> 
> Cc: Günther Noack <gnoack at google.com>
> Cc: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1 at huawei-partners.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic at digikod.net>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241109110856.222842-2-mic@digikod.net
> ---
> 
> Changes since v3:
> * Rename landlock_merge_access_masks() to landlock_union_access_masks(),
>   suggested by Günther.
> * Rename landlock_match_ruleset() to landlock_get_applicable_domain(),
>   suggested by Günther.
> * Rename the "ruleset" arguments to "domain" for consistency with these
>   new helpers.
> * Use typeof_member(), suggested by Günther.  Also include kernel.h
>   (instead of the new container_of.h to ease backports).
> 
> Changes since v2:
> * Create a new type union access_masks_all instead of changing struct
>   acces_masks.
> * Replace get_fs_domain() with an explicit call to
>   landlock_match_ruleset().
> 
> Changes since v1:
> * Rename landlock_filter_access_masks() to landlock_match_ruleset().
> * Rename local variables from domain to ruleset to mach helpers'
>   semantic.  We'll rename and move these helpers when we'll have a
>   dedicated domain struct type.
> * Rename the all_fs mask to any_fs.
> * Add documentation, as suggested by Günther.
> ---
>  security/landlock/fs.c       | 31 ++++-----------
>  security/landlock/ruleset.h  | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  security/landlock/syscalls.c |  2 +-
>  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> index 7d79fc8abe21..e31b97a9f175 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> @@ -388,38 +388,22 @@ static bool is_nouser_or_private(const struct dentry *dentry)
>  		unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(d_backing_inode(dentry))));
>  }
>  
> -static access_mask_t
> -get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
> -{
> -	access_mask_t access_dom = 0;
> -	size_t layer_level;
> -
> -	for (layer_level = 0; layer_level < domain->num_layers; layer_level++)
> -		access_dom |=
> -			landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(domain, layer_level);
> -	return access_dom;
> -}
> -
>  static access_mask_t
>  get_handled_fs_accesses(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
>  {
>  	/* Handles all initially denied by default access rights. */
> -	return get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(domain) |
> +	return landlock_union_access_masks(domain).fs |
>  	       LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_INITIALLY_DENIED;
>  }
>  
> -static const struct landlock_ruleset *
> -get_fs_domain(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
> -{
> -	if (!domain || !get_raw_handled_fs_accesses(domain))
> -		return NULL;
> -
> -	return domain;
> -}
> +static const struct access_masks any_fs = {
> +	.fs = ~0,
> +};
>  
>  static const struct landlock_ruleset *get_current_fs_domain(void)
>  {
> -	return get_fs_domain(landlock_get_current_domain());
> +	return landlock_get_applicable_domain(landlock_get_current_domain(),
> +					      any_fs);
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1517,7 +1501,8 @@ static int hook_file_open(struct file *const file)
>  	access_mask_t open_access_request, full_access_request, allowed_access,
>  		optional_access;
>  	const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom =
> -		get_fs_domain(landlock_cred(file->f_cred)->domain);
> +		landlock_get_applicable_domain(
> +			landlock_cred(file->f_cred)->domain, any_fs);
>  
>  	if (!dom)
>  		return 0;
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 61bdbc550172..698fa3114cf4 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
>  #include <linux/build_bug.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/mutex.h>
>  #include <linux/rbtree.h>
>  #include <linux/refcount.h>
> @@ -47,6 +48,15 @@ struct access_masks {
>  	access_mask_t scope : LANDLOCK_NUM_SCOPE;
>  };
>  
> +union access_masks_all {
> +	struct access_masks masks;
> +	u32 all;
> +};
> +
> +/* Makes sure all fields are covered. */
> +static_assert(sizeof(typeof_member(union access_masks_all, masks)) ==
> +	      sizeof(typeof_member(union access_masks_all, all)));
> +
>  typedef u16 layer_mask_t;
>  /* Makes sure all layers can be checked. */
>  static_assert(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask_t) >= LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
> @@ -260,6 +270,60 @@ static inline void landlock_get_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset)
>  		refcount_inc(&ruleset->usage);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + * landlock_union_access_masks - Return all access rights handled in the
> + *				 domain
> + *
> + * @domain: Landlock ruleset (used as a domain)
> + *
> + * Returns: an access_masks result of the OR of all the domain's access masks.
> + */
> +static inline struct access_masks
> +landlock_union_access_masks(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain)
> +{
> +	union access_masks_all matches = {};
> +	size_t layer_level;
> +
> +	for (layer_level = 0; layer_level < domain->num_layers; layer_level++) {
> +		union access_masks_all layer = {
> +			.masks = domain->access_masks[layer_level],
> +		};
> +
> +		matches.all |= layer.all;
> +	}
> +
> +	return matches.masks;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * landlock_get_applicable_domain - Return @domain if it applies to (handles)
> + *				    the access rights specified in @masks

Very minor wording suggestion: For clarity, I would suggest "at least one of":

  Return @domain if it applies to (handles)
  at least one of the access rights specified in @masks

Otherwise this can be interpreted as "...all of the access rights specified in
@masks".

> + *
> + * @domain: Landlock ruleset (used as a domain)
> + * @masks: access masks
> + *
> + * Returns: @domain if any access rights specified in @masks is handled, or
> + * NULL otherwise.
> + */
> +static inline const struct landlock_ruleset *
> +landlock_get_applicable_domain(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +			       const struct access_masks masks)
> +{
> +	const union access_masks_all masks_all = {
> +		.masks = masks,
> +	};
> +	union access_masks_all merge = {};
> +
> +	if (!domain)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	merge.masks = landlock_union_access_masks(domain);
> +	if (merge.all & masks_all.all)
> +		return domain;
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void
>  landlock_add_fs_access_mask(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  			    const access_mask_t fs_access_mask,
> @@ -295,19 +359,12 @@ landlock_add_scope_mask(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  	ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].scope |= mask;
>  }
>  
> -static inline access_mask_t
> -landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(const struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> -				const u16 layer_level)
> -{
> -	return ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].fs;
> -}
> -
>  static inline access_mask_t
>  landlock_get_fs_access_mask(const struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  			    const u16 layer_level)
>  {
>  	/* Handles all initially denied by default access rights. */
> -	return landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(ruleset, layer_level) |
> +	return ruleset->access_masks[layer_level].fs |
>  	       LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_INITIALLY_DENIED;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index f5a0e7182ec0..c097d356fa45 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int add_rule_path_beneath(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>  		return -ENOMSG;
>  
>  	/* Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints. */
> -	mask = landlock_get_raw_fs_access_mask(ruleset, 0);
> +	mask = ruleset->access_masks[0].fs;
>  	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | mask) != mask)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  
> -- 
> 2.47.0
> 

Reviewed-by: Günther Noack <gnoack at google.com>

Looks good, thanks! Names are much clearer now, IMHO. 👍

—Günther



More information about the Linux-security-module-archive mailing list