Re: [PATCH v30 02/12] landlock: Add ruleset and domain management
From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-19 18:41:03
Also in:
linux-api, linux-arch, linux-fsdevel, linux-kselftest, linux-security-module, lkml
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 09:42:42PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
From: Mickaël Salaün <redacted> A Landlock ruleset is mainly a red-black tree with Landlock rules as nodes. This enables quick update and lookup to match a requested access, e.g. to a file. A ruleset is usable through a dedicated file descriptor (cf. following commit implementing syscalls) which enables a process to create and populate a ruleset with new rules. A domain is a ruleset tied to a set of processes. This group of rules defines the security policy enforced on these processes and their future children. A domain can transition to a new domain which is the intersection of all its constraints and those of a ruleset provided by the current process. This modification only impact the current process. This means that a process can only gain more constraints (i.e. lose accesses) over time. Cc: James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> Cc: Kees Cook <redacted> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <redacted> Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210316204252.427806-3-mic@digikod.net (local)
(Aside: you appear to be self-adding your Link: tags -- AIUI, this is normally done by whoever pulls your series. I've only seen Link: tags added when needing to refer to something else not included in the series.)
[...]
+static void put_rule(struct landlock_rule *const rule)
+{
+ might_sleep();
+ if (!rule)
+ return;
+ landlock_put_object(rule->object);
+ kfree(rule);
+}I'd expect this to be named "release" rather than "put" since it doesn't do any lifetime reference counting.
+static void build_check_ruleset(void)
+{
+ const struct landlock_ruleset ruleset = {
+ .num_rules = ~0,
+ .num_layers = ~0,
+ };
+
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_rules < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_RULES);
+ BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_layers < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
+}This is checking that the largest possible stored value is correctly within the LANDLOCK_MAX_* macro value?
[...]
The locking all looks right, and given your test coverage and syzkaller work, it's hard for me to think of ways to prove it out any better. :) Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <redacted> -- Kees Cook