On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:35:50PM +0100, Günther Noack wrote:
Hello!
I think this is a good idea. Some minor implementation remarks below.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 08:18:04PM +0100, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
Because sandboxing can be used as an opportunistic security measure, user space may not log unsupported features. Let the system administrator know if an application tries to use Landlock but failed because it isn't enabled at boot time. This may be caused by bootloader configurations with outdated "lsm" kernel's command-line parameter.
Cc: Günther Noack gnoack@google.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 265885daf3e5 ("landlock: Add syscall implementations") Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün mic@digikod.net
security/landlock/syscalls.c | 18 +++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c index f0bc50003b46..b5b424819dee 100644 --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c @@ -33,6 +33,18 @@ #include "ruleset.h" #include "setup.h" +static bool is_not_initialized(void) +{
- if (likely(landlock_initialized))
return false;Optional stylistic remark; I try to avoid predicate functions which have a "negated" meaning, because double negations are slightly more error prone. (We return false here, so Landlock is not not initialized.)
I agree, I was also bothered about this double negation. I'll send a v2 with the same behavior but an is_initialized() helper instead.
- pr_warn_once(
"Disabled but requested by user space. ""You should enable Landlock at boot time: ""https://docs.kernel.org/userspace-api/landlock.html#kernel-support\n");- return true;
+}
/**
- copy_min_struct_from_user - Safe future-proof argument copying
@@ -173,7 +185,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset, /* Build-time checks. */ build_check_abi();
- if (!landlock_initialized)
- if (is_not_initialized()) return -EOPNOTSUPP;
Technically, any Landlock user needs to go through the landlock_create_ruleset() system call anyway; it might be enough to just add it in that place and leave the other system calls as they were. Then you could also omit the special function.
True, but we never know. I prefer to cover all entry points the same way. It makes things more consistent and easier to review.
Reviewed-by: Günther Noack gnoack3000@gmail.com
–Günther