Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/2] landlock: Fix non-TCP sockets restriction

["Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:30:02AM +0300, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> On 10/3/2024 8:45 PM, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > Please also add Matthieu in Cc for the network patch series.
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2024 at 10:39:31PM +0800, Mikhail Ivanov wrote:
> > > Do not check TCP access right if socket protocol is not IPPROTO_TCP.
> > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP
> > > should not restrict bind(2) and connect(2) for non-TCP protocols
> > > (SCTP, MPTCP, SMC).
> > > 
> > > Closes: https://github.com/landlock-lsm/linux/issues/40
> > > Fixes: fff69fb03dde ("landlock: Support network rules with TCP bind and connect")
> > > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Ivanov <ivanov.mikhail1@huawei-partners.com>
> > > ---
> > >   security/landlock/net.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> > > index bc3d943a7118..6f59dd98bb13 100644
> > > --- a/security/landlock/net.c
> > > +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> > > @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static int current_check_access_socket(struct socket *const sock,
> > >   		return -EACCES;
> > >   	/* Checks if it's a (potential) TCP socket. */
> > 
> > We can extend this comment to explain that we don't use sk_is_tcp()
> > because we need to handle the AF_UNSPEC case.
> 
> Indeed, I'll do this.
> 
> > 
> > > -	if (sock->type != SOCK_STREAM)
> > > +	if (sock->type != SOCK_STREAM || sock->sk->sk_protocol != IPPROTO_TCP)
> > 
> > I think we should check sock->sk->sk_type instead of sock->type (even if
> > it should be the same).  To make it simpler, we should only use sk in
> > current_check_access_socket():
> > struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > 
> > Could you please also do s/__sk_common\.skc_/sk_/g ?
> 
> Ofc
> 
> Btw, there is probably incorrect read of skc_family in this function
> [1]. I'll add READ_ONCE for sk->sk_family.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240202095404.183274-1-edumazet@google.com/

I think it should not be a bug with the current code (IPv6 -> IPV4, and
socket vs. sock) but we should indeed use READ_ONCE() (and add this link
to the commit message).

> 
> > 
> > >   		return 0;
> > >   	/* Checks for minimal header length to safely read sa_family. */
> > > -- 
> > > 2.34.1
> > > 
> > > 
>