From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: mic@digikod.net
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: WTF: patch "[PATCH] landlock: Change landlock_restrict_self(2) check ordering" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 5.18-stable tree?
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 09:51:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <165450186787153@kroah.com> (raw)
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 eba39ca4b155c54adf471a69e91799cc1727873f 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 18:08:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] landlock: Change landlock_restrict_self(2) check ordering
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
According to the Landlock goal to be a security feature available to
unprivileges processes, it makes more sense to first check for
no_new_privs before checking anything else (i.e. syscall arguments).
Merge inval_fd_enforce and unpriv_enforce_without_no_new_privs tests
into the new restrict_self_checks_ordering. This is similar to the
previous commit checking other syscalls.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220506160820.524344-10-mic@digikod.net
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
index a7396220c9d4..507d43827afe 100644
--- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
+++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
@@ -405,10 +405,6 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(landlock_restrict_self, const int, ruleset_fd, const __u32,
if (!landlock_initialized)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- /* No flag for now. */
- if (flags)
- return -EINVAL;
-
/*
* Similar checks as for seccomp(2), except that an -EPERM may be
* returned.
@@ -417,6 +413,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(landlock_restrict_self, const int, ruleset_fd, const __u32,
!ns_capable_noaudit(current_user_ns(), CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
return -EPERM;
+ /* No flag for now. */
+ if (flags)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_READ);
if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
index 18b779471dcb..21fb33581419 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/landlock/base_test.c
@@ -168,22 +168,49 @@ TEST(add_rule_checks_ordering)
ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
}
-TEST(inval_fd_enforce)
+/* Tests ordering of syscall argument and permission checks. */
+TEST(restrict_self_checks_ordering)
{
+ const struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr = {
+ .handled_access_fs = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_EXECUTE,
+ };
+ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr = {
+ .allowed_access = LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_EXECUTE,
+ .parent_fd = -1,
+ };
+ const int ruleset_fd =
+ landlock_create_ruleset(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr), 0);
+
+ ASSERT_LE(0, ruleset_fd);
+ path_beneath_attr.parent_fd =
+ open("/tmp", O_PATH | O_NOFOLLOW | O_DIRECTORY | O_CLOEXEC);
+ ASSERT_LE(0, path_beneath_attr.parent_fd);
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_add_rule(ruleset_fd, LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH,
+ &path_beneath_attr, 0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, close(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd));
+
+ /* Checks unprivileged enforcement without no_new_privs. */
+ drop_caps(_metadata);
+ ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_restrict_self(-1, -1));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
+ ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_restrict_self(-1, 0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
+ ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_restrict_self(ruleset_fd, 0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
+
ASSERT_EQ(0, prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0));
+ /* Checks invalid flags. */
+ ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_restrict_self(-1, -1));
+ ASSERT_EQ(EINVAL, errno);
+
+ /* Checks invalid ruleset FD. */
ASSERT_EQ(-1, landlock_restrict_self(-1, 0));
ASSERT_EQ(EBADF, errno);
-}
-
-TEST(unpriv_enforce_without_no_new_privs)
-{
- int err;
- drop_caps(_metadata);
- err = landlock_restrict_self(-1, 0);
- ASSERT_EQ(EPERM, errno);
- ASSERT_EQ(err, -1);
+ /* Checks valid call. */
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, landlock_restrict_self(ruleset_fd, 0));
+ ASSERT_EQ(0, close(ruleset_fd));
}
TEST(ruleset_fd_io)
reply other threads:[~2022-06-06 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=165450186787153@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.