The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 5.18-stable tree.
I fail to see how this patch meets the stable kernel rules as found at Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst.
I could be totally wrong, and if so, please respond to stable@vger.kernel.org and let me know why this patch should be applied. Otherwise, it is now dropped from my patch queues, never to be seen again.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 8ba0005ff418ec356e176b26eaa04a6ac755d05b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Micka=C3=ABl=20Sala=C3=BCn?= mic@digikod.net Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 18:10:54 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] landlock: Fix same-layer rule unions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The original behavior was to check if the full set of requested accesses was allowed by at least a rule of every relevant layer. This didn't take into account requests for multiple accesses and same-layer rules allowing the union of these accesses in a complementary way. As a result, multiple accesses requested on a file hierarchy matching rules that, together, allowed these accesses, but without a unique rule allowing all of them, was illegitimately denied. This case should be rare in practice and it can only be triggered by the path_rename or file_open hook implementations.
For instance, if, for the same layer, a rule allows execution beneath /a/b and another rule allows read beneath /a, requesting access to read and execute at the same time for /a/b should be allowed for this layer.
This was an inconsistency because the union of same-layer rule accesses was already allowed if requested once at a time anyway.
This fix changes the way allowed accesses are gathered over a path walk. To take into account all these rule accesses, we store in a matrix all layer granting the set of requested accesses, according to the handled accesses. To avoid heap allocation, we use an array on the stack which is 2*13 bytes. A following commit bringing the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER access right will increase this size to reach 112 bytes (2*14*4) in case of link or rename actions.
Add a new layout1.layer_rule_unions test to check that accesses from different rules pertaining to the same layer are ORed in a file hierarchy. Also test that it is not the case for rules from different layers.
Reviewed-by: Paul Moore paul@paul-moore.com Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220506161102.525323-5-mic@digikod.net Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün mic@digikod.net
diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c index 20953bff8fd5..c5749301b37d 100644 --- a/security/landlock/fs.c +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c @@ -207,45 +207,67 @@ find_rule(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain, return rule; }
-static inline layer_mask_t unmask_layers(const struct landlock_rule *const rule, - const access_mask_t access_request, - layer_mask_t layer_mask) +/* + * @layer_masks is read and may be updated according to the access request and + * the matching rule. + * + * Returns true if the request is allowed (i.e. relevant layer masks for the + * request are empty). + */ +static inline bool +unmask_layers(const struct landlock_rule *const rule, + const access_mask_t access_request, + layer_mask_t (*const layer_masks)[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS]) { size_t layer_level;
+ if (!access_request || !layer_masks) + return true; if (!rule) - return layer_mask; + return false;
/* * An access is granted if, for each policy layer, at least one rule - * encountered on the pathwalk grants the requested accesses, - * regardless of their position in the layer stack. We must then check + * encountered on the pathwalk grants the requested access, + * regardless of its position in the layer stack. We must then check * the remaining layers for each inode, from the first added layer to - * the last one. + * the last one. When there is multiple requested accesses, for each + * policy layer, the full set of requested accesses may not be granted + * by only one rule, but by the union (binary OR) of multiple rules. + * E.g. /a/b <execute> + /a <read> => /a/b <execute + read> */ for (layer_level = 0; layer_level < rule->num_layers; layer_level++) { const struct landlock_layer *const layer = &rule->layers[layer_level]; const layer_mask_t layer_bit = BIT_ULL(layer->level - 1); + const unsigned long access_req = access_request; + unsigned long access_bit; + bool is_empty;
- /* Checks that the layer grants access to the full request. */ - if ((layer->access & access_request) == access_request) { - layer_mask &= ~layer_bit; - - if (layer_mask == 0) - return layer_mask; + /* + * Records in @layer_masks which layer grants access to each + * requested access. + */ + is_empty = true; + for_each_set_bit(access_bit, &access_req, + ARRAY_SIZE(*layer_masks)) { + if (layer->access & BIT_ULL(access_bit)) + (*layer_masks)[access_bit] &= ~layer_bit; + is_empty = is_empty && !(*layer_masks)[access_bit]; } + if (is_empty) + return true; } - return layer_mask; + return false; }
static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain, const struct path *const path, const access_mask_t access_request) { - bool allowed = false; + layer_mask_t layer_masks[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS] = {}; + bool allowed = false, has_access = false; struct path walker_path; - layer_mask_t layer_mask; size_t i;
if (!access_request) @@ -265,13 +287,20 @@ static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain, return -EACCES;
/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested accesses. */ - layer_mask = 0; for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) { - if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & access_request) - layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i); + const unsigned long access_req = access_request; + unsigned long access_bit; + + for_each_set_bit(access_bit, &access_req, + ARRAY_SIZE(layer_masks)) { + if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & BIT_ULL(access_bit)) { + layer_masks[access_bit] |= BIT_ULL(i); + has_access = true; + } + } } /* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */ - if (layer_mask == 0) + if (!has_access) return 0;
walker_path = *path; @@ -283,14 +312,11 @@ static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain, while (true) { struct dentry *parent_dentry;
- layer_mask = - unmask_layers(find_rule(domain, walker_path.dentry), - access_request, layer_mask); - if (layer_mask == 0) { + allowed = unmask_layers(find_rule(domain, walker_path.dentry), + access_request, &layer_masks); + if (allowed) /* Stops when a rule from each layer grants access. */ - allowed = true; break; - }
jump_up: if (walker_path.dentry == walker_path.mnt->mnt_root) { diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h index 521af2848951..d43231b783e4 100644 --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ typedef u16 access_mask_t; /* Makes sure all filesystem access rights can be stored. */ static_assert(BITS_PER_TYPE(access_mask_t) >= LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS); +/* Makes sure for_each_set_bit() and for_each_clear_bit() calls are OK. */ +static_assert(sizeof(unsigned long) >= sizeof(access_mask_t));
typedef u16 layer_mask_t; /* Makes sure all layers can be checked. */ diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c index e13f046a172a..a4fdcda62bde 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/fs_test.c @@ -758,6 +758,113 @@ TEST_F_FORK(layout1, ruleset_overlap) ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(dir_s1d3, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); }
+TEST_F_FORK(layout1, layer_rule_unions) +{ + const struct rule layer1[] = { + { + .path = dir_s1d2, + .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE, + }, + /* dir_s1d3 should allow READ_FILE and WRITE_FILE (O_RDWR). */ + { + .path = dir_s1d3, + .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE, + }, + {}, + }; + const struct rule layer2[] = { + /* Doesn't change anything from layer1. */ + { + .path = dir_s1d2, + .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_READ_FILE | + LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE, + }, + {}, + }; + const struct rule layer3[] = { + /* Only allows write (but not read) to dir_s1d3. */ + { + .path = dir_s1d2, + .access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_WRITE_FILE, + }, + {}, + }; + int ruleset_fd = create_ruleset(_metadata, ACCESS_RW, layer1); + + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); + + /* Checks s1d1 hierarchy with layer1. */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d2 hierarchy with layer1. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d3 hierarchy with layer1. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_WRONLY)); + /* dir_s1d3 should allow READ_FILE and WRITE_FILE (O_RDWR). */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Doesn't change anything from layer1. */ + ruleset_fd = create_ruleset(_metadata, ACCESS_RW, layer2); + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); + + /* Checks s1d1 hierarchy with layer2. */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d2 hierarchy with layer2. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d3 hierarchy with layer2. */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_WRONLY)); + /* dir_s1d3 should allow READ_FILE and WRITE_FILE (O_RDWR). */ + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Only allows write (but not read) to dir_s1d3. */ + ruleset_fd = create_ruleset(_metadata, ACCESS_RW, layer3); + ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd); + enforce_ruleset(_metadata, ruleset_fd); + ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd)); + + /* Checks s1d1 hierarchy with layer3. */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d1, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d2 hierarchy with layer3. */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_WRONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d2, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); + + /* Checks s1d3 hierarchy with layer3. */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDONLY)); + ASSERT_EQ(0, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_WRONLY)); + /* dir_s1d3 should now deny READ_FILE and WRITE_FILE (O_RDWR). */ + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(file1_s1d3, O_RDWR)); + ASSERT_EQ(EACCES, test_open(dir_s1d1, O_RDONLY | O_DIRECTORY)); +} + TEST_F_FORK(layout1, non_overlapping_accesses) { const struct rule layer1[] = {