From: Tingmao Wang <m@maowtm.org>
To: "Mickaël Salaün" <mic@digikod.net>, "Song Liu" <song@kernel.org>,
"Al Viro" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Günther Noack" <gnoack@google.com>, "Jan Kara" <jack@suse.cz>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
"Christian Brauner" <brauner@kernel.org>,
linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] Restart pathwalk on rename seqcount change
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2025 02:09:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22dcdbc4-7237-4693-8bd6-c1404918b648@maowtm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7452abd023a695a7cb87d0a30536e9afecae0e9a.1748997840.git.m@maowtm.org>
On 6/4/25 01:45, Tingmao Wang wrote:
> This fixes the issue mentioned in the previous patch, by essentially
> having two "modes" for the pathwalk code - in the pathwalk_ref == false
> case we don't take references and just inspect `d_parent` (unless we have
> to `follow_up`). In the pathwalk_ref == true case, this is the same as
> before.
>
> When we detect any renames during a pathwalk_ref == false walk, we restart
> with pathwalk_ref == true, re-initializing the layer masks. I'm not sure
> if this is completely correct in regards to is_dom_check - but seems to
> work for now. I can revisit this later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tingmao Wang <m@maowtm.org>
> ---
> security/landlock/fs.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> index 923737412cfa..6dff5fb6b181 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> @@ -771,6 +771,9 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> _layer_masks_child2[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS];
> layer_mask_t(*layer_masks_child1)[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS] = NULL,
> (*layer_masks_child2)[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS] = NULL;
> + unsigned int rename_seqcount;
> + bool pathwalk_ref = false;
> + const struct landlock_rule *rule;
>
> if (!access_request_parent1 && !access_request_parent2)
> return true;
> @@ -811,6 +814,7 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
>
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> +restart_pathwalk:
> if (unlikely(dentry_child1)) {
> landlock_unmask_layers(
> find_rule_rcu(domain, dentry_child1),
> @@ -833,13 +837,32 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> }
>
> walker_path = *path;
> +
> + /*
> + * Attempt to do a pathwalk without taking dentry references first,
> + * but if any rename happens while we are doing this, give up and do a
> + * walk with dget_parent instead. See comments in
> + * collect_domain_accesses().
> + */
> +
> + if (!pathwalk_ref) {
> + rename_seqcount = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
> + if (rename_seqcount % 2 == 1) {
> + pathwalk_ref = true;
> + path_get(&walker_path);
> + }
> + } else {
> + path_get(&walker_path);
> + }
> +
> + rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, walker_path.dentry);
> +
> /*
> * We need to walk through all the hierarchy to not miss any relevant
> * restriction.
> */
> while (true) {
> struct dentry *parent_dentry;
> - const struct landlock_rule *rule;
>
> /*
> * If at least all accesses allowed on the destination are
> @@ -881,7 +904,6 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> break;
> }
>
> - rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, walker_path.dentry);
> allowed_parent1 = allowed_parent1 ||
> landlock_unmask_layers(
> rule, access_masked_parent1,
> @@ -899,13 +921,16 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> jump_up:
> if (walker_path.dentry == walker_path.mnt->mnt_root) {
> /* follow_up gets the parent and puts the passed in path */
> - path_get(&walker_path);
> + if (!pathwalk_ref)
> + path_get(&walker_path);
> if (follow_up(&walker_path)) {
> - path_put(&walker_path);
> + if (!pathwalk_ref)
> + path_put(&walker_path);
> /* Ignores hidden mount points. */
> goto jump_up;
> } else {
> - path_put(&walker_path);
> + if (!pathwalk_ref)
> + path_put(&walker_path);
> /*
> * Stops at the real root. Denies access
> * because not all layers have granted access.
> @@ -925,10 +950,27 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> }
> break;
> }
> - parent_dentry = walker_path.dentry->d_parent;
> - walker_path.dentry = parent_dentry;
> + if (!pathwalk_ref) {
> + parent_dentry = walker_path.dentry->d_parent;
> +
> + rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, parent_dentry);
> + if (read_seqretry(&rename_lock, rename_seqcount)) {
> + pathwalk_ref = true;
> + goto restart_pathwalk;
> + } else {
> + walker_path.dentry = parent_dentry;
> + }
> + } else {
> + parent_dentry = dget_parent(walker_path.dentry);
> + dput(walker_path.dentry);
> + walker_path.dentry = parent_dentry;
> + rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, walker_path.dentry);
> + }
> }
>
> + if (pathwalk_ref)
> + path_put(&walker_path);
> +
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (!allowed_parent1) {
> @@ -1040,22 +1082,55 @@ static bool collect_domain_accesses(
> {
> unsigned long access_dom;
> bool ret = false;
> + bool pathwalk_ref = false;
> + unsigned int rename_seqcount;
> + const struct landlock_rule *rule;
> + struct dentry *parent_dentry;
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain || !mnt_root || !dir || !layer_masks_dom))
> return true;
> if (is_nouser_or_private(dir))
> return true;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> +restart_pathwalk:
> access_dom = landlock_init_layer_masks(domain, LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS,
> layer_masks_dom,
> LANDLOCK_KEY_INODE);
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> + /*
> + * Attempt to do a pathwalk without taking dentry references first, but
> + * if any rename happens while we are doing this, give up and do a walk
> + * with dget_parent instead. This prevents wrong denials in the
> + * presence of a move followed by an immediate rmdir of the old parent,
> + * where even when both the original and the new parent has allow
> + * rules, we might still hit a negative dentry (the deleted old parent)
> + * and being unable to find either rules.
> + */
> +
> + if (!pathwalk_ref) {
> + rename_seqcount = read_seqbegin(&rename_lock);
> + if (rename_seqcount % 2 == 1) {
> + pathwalk_ref = true;
> + dget(dir);
> + }
> + } else {
> + dget(dir);
> + }
> + rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, dir);
> + /*
> + * We don't need to check rename_seqcount here because we haven't
> + * followed any d_parent yet, and the d_inode of the path being
> + * accessed can't change under us as we have ref on path.dentry. But
> + * once we start walking up the path, we need to check the seqcount to
> + * make sure the rule we got isn't based on a wrong/changing/negative
> + * dentry.
> + */
>
> while (true) {
> /* Gets all layers allowing all domain accesses. */
> - if (landlock_unmask_layers(find_rule_rcu(domain, dir), access_dom,
> - layer_masks_dom,
> + if (landlock_unmask_layers(rule, access_dom, layer_masks_dom,
> ARRAY_SIZE(*layer_masks_dom))) {
> /*
> * Stops when all handled accesses are allowed by at
> @@ -1069,9 +1144,21 @@ static bool collect_domain_accesses(
> if (dir == mnt_root || WARN_ON_ONCE(IS_ROOT(dir)))
> break;
>
> - dir = dir->d_parent;
> + if (!pathwalk_ref) {
> + parent_dentry = dir->d_parent;
> + rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, dir);
> + if (read_seqretry(&rename_lock, rename_seqcount)) {
> + pathwalk_ref = true;
> + goto restart_pathwalk;
> + } else {
> + dir = parent_dentry;
> + }
> + }
Forgot else branch here
diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
index 6dff5fb6b181..885121b1beef 100644
--- a/security/landlock/fs.c
+++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
@@ -1153,6 +1153,11 @@ static bool collect_domain_accesses(
} else {
dir = parent_dentry;
}
+ } else {
+ parent_dentry = dget_parent(dir);
+ dput(dir);
+ dir = parent_dentry;
+ rule = find_rule_rcu(domain, dir);
}
}
> }
>
> + if (pathwalk_ref)
> + dput(dir);
> +
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> return ret;
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-04 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-04 0:45 [RFC PATCH 0/3] landlock: walk parent dir with RCU, without taking references Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 0:45 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] landlock: walk parent dir " Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 17:15 ` Mickaël Salaün
2025-06-04 21:05 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-06 10:25 ` Christian Brauner
2025-06-04 0:45 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] selftests/landlock: Add fs_race_test Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 0:45 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] Restart pathwalk on rename seqcount change Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 0:55 ` Al Viro
2025-06-04 1:12 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 2:21 ` Al Viro
2025-06-04 18:56 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 19:17 ` Tingmao Wang
2025-06-04 1:09 ` Tingmao Wang [this message]
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=22dcdbc4-7237-4693-8bd6-c1404918b648@maowtm.org \
--to=m@maowtm.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=gnoack@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mic@digikod.net \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox