On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 07:47:11PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> On 12/09/2022 17:46, Günther Noack wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:51:35PM +0200, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> > > On 08/09/2022 21:58, Günther Noack wrote:
> > > > Use the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE flag in the tutorial.
> > > >
> > > > Adapt the backwards compatibility example and discussion to remove the
> > > > truncation flag where needed.
> > > >
> > > > Point out potential surprising behaviour related to truncate.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Günther Noack <gnoack3000@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
> > > > index b8ea59493964..57802fd1e09b 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/landlock.rst
> > > > @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Landlock: unprivileged access control
> > > > =====================================
> > > > :Author: Mickaël Salaün
> > > > -:Date: May 2022
> > > > +:Date: September 2022
> > > > The goal of Landlock is to enable to restrict ambient rights (e.g. global
> > > > filesystem access) for a set of processes. Because Landlock is a stackable
> > > > @@ -60,7 +60,8 @@ the need to be explicit about the denied-by-default access rights.
> > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_FIFO |
> > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK |
> > > > LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM |
> > > > - LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER,
> > > > + LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER |
> > > > + LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE,
> > > > };
> > > > Because we may not know on which kernel version an application will be
> > > > @@ -69,16 +70,26 @@ should try to protect users as much as possible whatever the kernel they are
> > > > using. To avoid binary enforcement (i.e. either all security features or
> > > > none), we can leverage a dedicated Landlock command to get the current version
> > > > of the Landlock ABI and adapt the handled accesses. Let's check if we should
> > > > -remove the `LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER` access right which is only supported
> > > > -starting with the second version of the ABI.
> > > > +remove the `LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER` or `LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE` access
> > > > +rights, which are only supported starting with the second and third version of
> > > > +the ABI.
> > > > .. code-block:: c
> > > > int abi;
> > > > abi = landlock_create_ruleset(NULL, 0, LANDLOCK_CREATE_RULESET_VERSION);
> > > > - if (abi < 2) {
> > > > - ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs &= ~LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER;
> > > > + switch (abi) {
> > > > + case -1:
> > > > + perror("The running kernel does not enable to use Landlock");
> > > > + return 1;
> > > > + case 1:
> > > > + /* Removes LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER for ABI < 2 */
> > > > + ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs &= ~LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER;
> > > > + __attribute__((fallthrough));
> > > > + case 2:
> > > > + /* Removes LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE for ABI < 3 */
> > > > + ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs &= ~LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE;
> > > > }
> > > > This enables to create an inclusive ruleset that will contain our rules.
> > > > @@ -127,8 +138,8 @@ descriptor.
> > > > It may also be required to create rules following the same logic as explained
> > > > for the ruleset creation, by filtering access rights according to the Landlock
> > > > -ABI version. In this example, this is not required because
> > > > -`LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER` is not allowed by any rule.
> > > > +ABI version. In this example, this is not required because all of the requested
> > > > +``allowed_access`` rights are already available in ABI 1.
> > >
> > > This fix is correct, but it should not be part of this series. FYI, I have a
> > > patch almost ready to fix some documentation style issues. Please remove
> > > this hunk for the next series. I'll deal with the merge conflicts if any.
> >
> > Can you please clarify what part of it should not be part of this
> > series?
>
> My mistake, I guess I was reviewing something else… I was thinking about
> style changes, but it is not the case here. Using "``" is correct.
>
>
> >
> > In this hunk, I've started using double backquote, but I've also
> > changed the meaning of the sentence slightly so that it is still
> > correct when the truncate right is introduced.
> >
> > It is still correct that the backwards compatibility check is not
> > required because LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_REFER is not allowed by any rule.
> > But with the new truncate flag, LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_TRUNCATE may also
> > not be allowed by any rule so that we can skip this check.
> >
> > Should I remove this hunk entirely?
>
> Keep your changes, it's better like this.
Thanks, reverted that part then.
—Günther
--
