Re: [RFC PATCH v1 5/7] landlock: Log file-related requests
From: Jeff Xu
Date: Fri Sep 29 2023 - 12:34:00 EST
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:04 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:04:01PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 8:16 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 02:19:51PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 6:35 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 06:26:28PM -0700, Jeff Xu wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 11:17 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Add audit support for mkdir, mknod, symlink, unlink, rmdir, truncate,
> > > > > > > and open requests.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > security/landlock/audit.c | 114 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > security/landlock/audit.h | 32 +++++++++++
> > > > > > > security/landlock/fs.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > > 3 files changed, 199 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > +static void
> > > > > > > +log_request(const int error, struct landlock_request *const request,
> > > > > > > + const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> > > > > > > + const access_mask_t access_request,
> > > > > > > + const layer_mask_t (*const layer_masks)[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS])
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct audit_buffer *ab;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!error))
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!request))
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain || !domain->hierarchy))
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + /* Uses GFP_ATOMIC to not sleep. */
> > > > > > > + ab = audit_log_start(audit_context(), GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN,
> > > > > > > + AUDIT_LANDLOCK);
> > > > > > > + if (!ab)
> > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + update_request(request, domain, access_request, layer_masks);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + log_task(ab);
> > > > > > > + audit_log_format(ab, " domain=%llu op=%s errno=%d missing-fs-accesses=",
> > > > > > > + request->youngest_domain,
> > > > > > > + op_to_string(request->operation), -error);
> > > > > > > + log_accesses(ab, request->missing_access);
> > > > > > > + audit_log_lsm_data(ab, &request->audit);
> > > > > > > + audit_log_end(ab);
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +// TODO: Make it generic, not FS-centric.
> > > > > > > +int landlock_log_request(
> > > > > > > + const int error, struct landlock_request *const request,
> > > > > > > + const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> > > > > > > + const access_mask_t access_request,
> > > > > > > + const layer_mask_t (*const layer_masks)[LANDLOCK_NUM_ACCESS_FS])
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + /* No need to log the access request, only the missing accesses. */
> > > > > > > + log_request(error, request, domain, access_request, layer_masks);
> > > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > > > @@ -636,7 +638,8 @@ static bool is_access_to_paths_allowed(
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static int current_check_access_path(const struct path *const path,
> > > > > > > - access_mask_t access_request)
> > > > > > > + access_mask_t access_request,
> > > > > > > + struct landlock_request *const request)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom =
> > > > > > > landlock_get_current_domain();
> > > > > > > @@ -650,7 +653,10 @@ static int current_check_access_path(const struct path *const path,
> > > > > > > NULL, 0, NULL, NULL))
> > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - return -EACCES;
> > > > > > > + request->audit.type = LSM_AUDIT_DATA_PATH;
> > > > > > > + request->audit.u.path = *path;
> > > > > > > + return landlock_log_request(-EACCES, request, dom, access_request,
> > > > > > > + &layer_masks);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It might be more readable to let landlock_log_request return void.
> > > > > > Then the code will look like below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > landlock_log_request(-EACCES, request, dom, access_request, &layer_masks);
> > > > > > return -EACCES;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The allow/deny logic will be in this function, i.e. reader
> > > > > > doesn't need to check landlock_log_request's implementation to find
> > > > > > out it never returns 0.
> > > > >
> > > > > I did that in an early version of this patch, but I finally choose to write
> > > > > 'return lanlock_log_request();` for mainly two reasons:
> > > > > * to help not forget to call this function at any non-zero return values
> > > > > (which can easily be checked with grep),
> > > >
> > > > "grep -A 2 landlock_log_request" would serve the same purpose though.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is always a way to find a pattern, and the best tool might be
> > > Coccinelle, but I think it's harder to miss with such tail calls.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > * to do tail calls.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess compiler should be smart enough to do tail calls with a variable
> > > > > set indirection, but I'd like to check that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What are tail calls and what is the benefit of this code pattern ?
> > > > i.e. pass the return value into landlock_log_request() and make it a
> > > > single point of setting return value for all landlock hooks.
> > >
> > > landlock_log_request() should only be called at the end of LSM hooks.
> > > Tail calls is basically when you call a function at the end of the
> > > caller. This enables replacing "call" with "jmp" and save stack space.
> > > landlock_log_request() can fit with this pattern (if not using the
> > > caller's stack, which is not currently the case). See this tail call
> > > optimization example: https://godbolt.org/z/r88ofcW6x
> > >
> > Thanks for giving the context of the tail call.
> > Compile options are controlled by makefile, and can be customized. In
> > the past, I have had different projects setting different O levels for
> > various reasons, including disable optimization completely. Individual
> > Compiler implementation also matters, gcc vs clang, etc. I think the
> > tail call is probably not essential to the discussion.
> >
> > > I find it less error prone to not duplicate the error code (once for
> > > landlock_log_request and another for the caller's returned value). I
> > > also don't really see the pro of using a variable only to share this
> > > value. In ptrace.c, an "err" variable is used to check if the error is 0
> > > or not, but that is handled differently for most hooks.
> > >
> > > Makeing landlock_log_request() return a value also encourages us (thanks
> > > to compiler warnings) to use this value and keep the error handling
> > > consistent (especially for future code).
> > >
> > One general assumption about logging function is that it is not part
> > of the main business logic, i.e. if the logging statement is
> > removed/commented out, it doesn't have side effects to the main
> > business logic. This is probably why most log functions return void.
>
> I get it. We need to be careful not to add blind spots though. If audit
> is not compiled, the inline function call will just be removed.
> Otherwise, logging or not depends on the audit framework and the runtime
> configuration.
>
> Another thing to keep in mind is that for now, if the log failed somehow
> (e.g. because of not enough memory), it will not impact the decision
> (either accept or deny). However, I guess we may want to be able to
> control this behavior is some cases one day, and in this case the log
> function needs to return an error.
>
> >
> > > Another feature that I'd like to add is to support a "permissive mode",
> > > that would enable to quickly see the impact of a sandbox without
> > > applying it for real. This might change some landlock_log_request()
> > > calls, so we'll see what fits best.
> > >
> > It is an excellent feature to have.
> > To implement that, I guess there will be a common function as a switch
> > to allow/deny, and logging the decision, depending on the permissive
> > setting.
>
> Permissive mode will be per domain/sandbox, so it will add complexity to
> the current logging mechanism, but that is worth it.
>
> > From that point, preparing the code towards that goal makes sense.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To make it easier to read (and to not forget returning the error), the
> > > > > landlock_log_request() calls a void log_request() helper, and returns
> > > > > the error itself. It is then easy to review and know what's happening
> > > > > without reading log_request().
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like the compiler to check itself that every LSM hook returned
> > > > > values are either 0 or comming from landlock_log_request() but I think
> > > > > it's not possible right now. Coccinelle might help here though.
> > > > >
> > > > > BTW, in a next version, we might have landlock_log_request() called even
> > > > > for allowed requests (i.e. returned value of 0).
> > When there is more business logic to landlock_log_request, it is
> > probably better to rename the function. Most devs might assume the log
> > function does nothing but logging. Having some meaningful name, e.g.
> > check_permissive_and_audit_log, will help with readability.
>
> As for the permissive mode, this would be per domain.
>
That is really nice to have.
> I'd like to keep the audit.h functions with the same prefix.
> What about landlock_log_result()?
>
I'm fine with keeping landlock_log_request in this version since it is
only temporary, or landlock_log_result() is better.
In the future version, landlock_log_result() still doesn't quite say
it might override the result, so maybe extract the audit logging out
of that at the time.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Jeff