diff mbox

[RFC,0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation

Message ID 20211210072123.386713-1-konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Konstantin Meskhidze (A) Dec. 10, 2021, 7:21 a.m. UTC
According the main idea of Landlock's author Mickaёl Salun the goal
of Landlock is to enable to restrict ambient rights
(e.g. global filesystem access) for a set of processes.
Landlock is stackable LSM. Landlock empowers any process,
including unprivileged ones, to securely restrict themselves.
This feature could be very helpful in containerized environment
and different sandboxed applications.

Now Landlock supports a number of filesytem access rights:
	- file execute
	- write to file
	- read file
	- make directory
 and etc.

So, this PoC patch provides the basic idea for Landlock network
access-control implementation.
eBPF-based sandboxes like BPFcontain and BPFbox sandboxes confine
network traffic at the socket level. Network rules grant access
to various socket operations on the IPv4 and IPv6 socket families.
Socket operations could be grouped by different use cases:
	• Client, server.
	• Send and receive categories.
BPFbox operation example:
	- connect
	- bind
	- accept
	- listen
	- send
 and etc.

Landlock network enhancement should follow similar logic
like in mentioned sandboxes!

Implementation related issues
=============================

1. Its needed to add a new type of rules:

enum landlock_rule_type {
	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
}

struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
	_u64 handled_access_fs;
	_u64 handled_actions_net;
}

struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
	/**
	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions
	 * for a current process
	 */
	__u64 allowed_actions;
}


2. Added 2 defines for network allowed actions.
Now the current prototype patch support creating 2 types
of sockets - unix and inet:
	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)

Its needed to discuss what kind of sockets types and actions
should be supported in MINIMAL version!!!


3. Syscalls interfaces.
Current syscall interface look like enough for support different
rule types, but it’s needed to modify some internal functions
to support it.

As an example:
struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
						 const u32 net_access_mask)
{
	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;

	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
	if (!access_mask && !net_access_mask )
		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && access_mask)
		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = access_mask;
	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;

	return new_ruleset;
}

In future, it's to use an array access_mask[LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1]
enum landlock_rule_type {
	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1
	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,

	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
};


4. Kernel objects.
For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock rules.
But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:

int sock_create_lite(int family, int type, int protocol,
		     struct socket **res)
{
	int err;
	struct socket *sock = NULL;

	err = security_socket_create(family, type, protocol, 1);
	if (err)
		goto out;
	...

	sock = sock_alloc();
	if (!sock) {
		err = -ENOMEM;
		goto out;
	}
	...
}
And all other socket rules can be tied to a process object, cause
it would be easier to maintaint and control it.
For containerized application a user could create a bunch container with
individual network restriction rules tied to them.

This solution (what kernel object to use) must be established first,
cause the following design depends on it.


5. Landlock internal structures modifications.

 - In further patches its needed network_rules structure in landlock_layer
structure to support network rules:

	struct landlock_layer {
		/**
		* @level: Position of this layer in the layer stack.
		*/
		u16 level;
		/**
		* @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
		* relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
		*/
		u16 access;

		struct network_rules;
	};

The architecture of struct network_rules has not been established yet,
and it could be like this :

	struct network_rules {
		Socket_domains = {AF_UNIX, AF_INET
		Socket_types = {SOCK_STREAM, ...
		Socket_protocols = {IP, TCP, ...
		Socket_actions = {"connect", "bind"
		IP_address_allowed[]
	}

 - Using pointer to FAM arrays of different types of access masks: fs,
network, ipc etc.

	struct landlock_ruleset {

		struct rb_root root;
		...
		...

		u16 *access_masks[];
	};


This is just the basic ideas for the open discussion.
Please give your opinion and suggestion.

Konstantin Meskhidze (2):
  landlock: base template for network hooks
  landlock: socket_create() hook implemented

 include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++
 security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
 security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
 security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
 security/landlock/net.c       | 209 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 security/landlock/net.h       |  50 ++++++++
 security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++--
 security/landlock/ruleset.h   |  11 +-
 security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
 security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++-------
 10 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
 create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h

--
2.25.1

From 8f1dff03a9722601334a31ee3c6680240a0e6e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:18:23 +0800
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] landlock: base template for network hooks

Add a new rule type LANDLOCK_RULE_NET to
landlock_rule_type.
Add landlock_net_beneath_attr to support network
allowed actions.
Add two network flags for socket creation confinement:
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK,
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK.
Update Landlock syscalls to support network rules
injections.
Update landlock_ruleset structure to support network access mask.
Add net.c and net.h files with network template functions.
Add new blob size with lbs_task and landlock_add_net_hooks
into landlock_init().

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
---
 include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++++++++
 security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
 security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
 security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
 security/landlock/net.c       |  88 +++++++++++++++++++++
 security/landlock/net.h       |  51 +++++++++++++
 security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++++---
 security/landlock/ruleset.h   |   9 ++-
 security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
 security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 10 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
 create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h

--
2.25.1

Comments

Casey Schaufler Dec. 10, 2021, 4:57 p.m. UTC | #1
On 12/9/2021 11:21 PM, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> According the main idea of Landlock's author Mickaёl Salun the goal
> of Landlock is to enable to restrict ambient rights
> (e.g. global filesystem access) for a set of processes.
> Landlock is stackable LSM. Landlock empowers any process,
> including unprivileged ones, to securely restrict themselves.
> This feature could be very helpful in containerized environment
> and different sandboxed applications.
>
> Now Landlock supports a number of filesytem access rights:
> 	- file execute
> 	- write to file
> 	- read file
> 	- make directory
>   and etc.
>
> So, this PoC patch provides the basic idea for Landlock network
> access-control implementation.
> eBPF-based sandboxes like BPFcontain and BPFbox sandboxes confine
> network traffic at the socket level. Network rules grant access
> to various socket operations on the IPv4 and IPv6 socket families.
> Socket operations could be grouped by different use cases:
> 	• Client, server.
> 	• Send and receive categories.
> BPFbox operation example:
> 	- connect
> 	- bind
> 	- accept
> 	- listen
> 	- send
>   and etc.
>
> Landlock network enhancement should follow similar logic
> like in mentioned sandboxes!
>
> Implementation related issues
> =============================
>
> 1. Its needed to add a new type of rules:
>
> enum landlock_rule_type {
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
> }
>
> struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
> 	_u64 handled_access_fs;
> 	_u64 handled_actions_net;
> }
>
> struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
> 	/**
> 	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions
> 	 * for a current process
> 	 */
> 	__u64 allowed_actions;
> }
>
>
> 2. Added 2 defines for network allowed actions.
> Now the current prototype patch support creating 2 types
> of sockets - unix and inet:
> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
>
> Its needed to discuss what kind of sockets types and actions
> should be supported in MINIMAL version!!!
>
>
> 3. Syscalls interfaces.
> Current syscall interface look like enough for support different
> rule types, but it’s needed to modify some internal functions
> to support it.
>
> As an example:
> struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> 						 const u32 net_access_mask)
> {
> 	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>
> 	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
> 	if (!access_mask && !net_access_mask )
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
> 	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && access_mask)
> 		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = access_mask;
> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
> 		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
>
> 	return new_ruleset;
> }
>
> In future, it's to use an array access_mask[LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1]
> enum landlock_rule_type {
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
>
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
> };
>
>
> 4. Kernel objects.

In our 1993 paper/BSD IPC Model and Policy/:

https://books.google.com/books?id=vQEHUD51YNEC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=\
schaufler+bsd+ipc+policy+and+model&source=bl&ots=59ogRfQYy-&sig=\
ACfU3U07kZnTRD_1InkS4tk-f05OJgRd2w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA8aH3y9n0AhXCN30KHfzhAg4Q6AF6BAgQEAM

we describe one of the earliest attempts to reconcile the
real world implementation of the Internet Protocol with
the requirements of Mandatory Access Control. We were wrong,
it turns out, but the effort revealed an important lesson ...

> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock rules.
> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
>
> int sock_create_lite(int family, int type, int protocol,
> 		     struct socket **res)
> {
> 	int err;
> 	struct socket *sock = NULL;
>
> 	err = security_socket_create(family, type, protocol, 1);
> 	if (err)
> 		goto out;
> 	...
>
> 	sock = sock_alloc();
> 	if (!sock) {
> 		err = -ENOMEM;
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 	...
> }
> And all other socket rules can be tied to a process object, cause
> it would be easier to maintaint and control it.
> For containerized application a user could create a bunch container with
> individual network restriction rules tied to them.
>
> This solution (what kernel object to use) must be established first,
> cause the following design depends on it.

As I think you've realized, *sockets are not objects*. There
isn't a way to justify them as objects without introducing
ethereal or magical subjects that don't exist. Sockets are
part of a process. OK, it's not that simple, and it would be
foolish to deny that a socket may have security relevant
properties. But they aren't objects.

I strongly recommend that you follow Smack's example and
use the sending task and receiving task attributes to make
the decision. You may find that storing that information
in the socket security blob is convenient.

BTW - not everyone agrees with me on this topic. I'll leave
the misguided to make their own arguments. ;)

> 5. Landlock internal structures modifications.
>
>   - In further patches its needed network_rules structure in landlock_layer
> structure to support network rules:
>
> 	struct landlock_layer {
> 		/**
> 		* @level: Position of this layer in the layer stack.
> 		*/
> 		u16 level;
> 		/**
> 		* @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
> 		* relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
> 		*/
> 		u16 access;
>
> 		struct network_rules;
> 	};
>
> The architecture of struct network_rules has not been established yet,
> and it could be like this :
>
> 	struct network_rules {
> 		Socket_domains = {AF_UNIX, AF_INET
> 		Socket_types = {SOCK_STREAM, ...
> 		Socket_protocols = {IP, TCP, ...
> 		Socket_actions = {"connect", "bind"
> 		IP_address_allowed[]
> 	}
>
>   - Using pointer to FAM arrays of different types of access masks: fs,
> network, ipc etc.
>
> 	struct landlock_ruleset {
>
> 		struct rb_root root;
> 		...
> 		...
>
> 		u16 *access_masks[];
> 	};
>
>
> This is just the basic ideas for the open discussion.
> Please give your opinion and suggestion.
>
> Konstantin Meskhidze (2):
>    landlock: base template for network hooks
>    landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
>
>   include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++
>   security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>   security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>   security/landlock/net.c       | 209 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/net.h       |  50 ++++++++
>   security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++--
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h   |  11 +-
>   security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++-------
>   10 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> >From 8f1dff03a9722601334a31ee3c6680240a0e6e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:18:23 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] landlock: base template for network hooks
>
> Add a new rule type LANDLOCK_RULE_NET to
> landlock_rule_type.
> Add landlock_net_beneath_attr to support network
> allowed actions.
> Add two network flags for socket creation confinement:
> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK,
> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK.
> Update Landlock syscalls to support network rules
> injections.
> Update landlock_ruleset structure to support network access mask.
> Add net.c and net.h files with network template functions.
> Add new blob size with lbs_task and landlock_add_net_hooks
> into landlock_init().
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> ---
>   include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>   security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>   security/landlock/net.c       |  88 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/net.h       |  51 +++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++++---
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h   |   9 ++-
>   security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   10 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> index b3d952067f59..7d980b55d345 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
>   	 * compatibility reasons.
>   	 */
>   	__u64 handled_access_fs;
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @handled_actions_net: Bitmask of actions (cf. `Network flags`_)
> +	 * that is handled by this ruleset and should then be forbidden if no
> +	 * rule explicitly allow them.  This is needed for backward
> +	 * compatibility reasons.
> +	 */
> +	__u64 handled_access_net;
>   };
>
>   /*
> @@ -46,6 +54,18 @@ enum landlock_rule_type {
>   	 * landlock_path_beneath_attr .
>   	 */
>   	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_NET: Type of a &struct
> +	 * landlock_net_beneath_attr .
> +	 */
> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM: Number of
> +	 * Landlock	rules type: fs, network, ipc ect.
> +	 */
> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
>   };
>
>   /**
> @@ -70,6 +90,22 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>   	 */
>   } __attribute__((packed));
>
> +/**
> + * struct landlock_path_beneath_attr - Network actions definition
> + *
> + * Argument of sys_landlock_add_rule().
> + */
> +struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
> +	/**
> +	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions for a current process
> +	 */
> +	__u64 allowed_actions;
> +	/*
> +	 * This struct is packed to avoid trailing reserved members.
> +	 * Cf. security/landlock/syscalls.c:build_check_abi()
> +	 */
> +} __attribute__((packed));
> +
>   /**
>    * DOC: fs_access
>    *
> @@ -134,4 +170,37 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>   #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK			(1ULL << 11)
>   #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM			(1ULL << 12)
>
> +/**
> + * DOC: net_actions
> + *
> + * A set of actions on kernel objects may be defined by an attribute (e.g.
> + * &struct landlock_net_beneath_attr) including a bitmask of access.
> + *
> + * Network flags
> + * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> + *
> + * These flags enable to restrict a sandboxed process to a set of actions on
> + * network actions.
> + *
> + * A process can only create these type sockets with allowed actions:
> + *
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE...: Create a unix/inet socket.
> + *
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a UNIX domain
> + *   socket.
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_INET_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a IPv4 Internet
> + *   protocols domain socket.
> + *
> + * .. warning::
> + *
> + *   It is currently not possible to restrict some network-related actions
> + *   accessible through these syscall families:   accept(2), bind(2),
> + *   close(2), connect(2), fcntl(2),getpeername(2), getsockname(2),
> + *   getsockopt(2), listen(2), read(2), recv(2), select(2), send(2),
> + *   shutdown(2), socketpair(2),
> + *   Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them.
> + */
> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
> +
>   #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_LANDLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/Makefile b/security/landlock/Makefile
> index 7bbd2f413b3e..afa44baaa83a 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/Makefile
> +++ b/security/landlock/Makefile
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>   obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) := landlock.o
>
>   landlock-y := setup.o syscalls.o object.o ruleset.o \
> -	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o
> +	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o net.o
> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> index 97b8e421f617..bb5967fc5dd4 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int landlock_append_fs_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
>   	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
> -	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->fs_access_masks[0];
> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->access_masks[0][0];
>   	object = get_inode_object(d_backing_inode(path->dentry));
>   	if (IS_ERR(object))
>   		return PTR_ERR(object);
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
>   	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested accesses. */
>   	layer_mask = 0;
>   	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
> -		if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & access_request)
> +		if (domain->access_masks[0][i] & access_request)
>   			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
>   	}
>   	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/limits.h b/security/landlock/limits.h
> index 2a0a1095ee27..56f883530545 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/limits.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/limits.h
> @@ -18,4 +18,7 @@
>   #define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS		LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM
>   #define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS		((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS << 1) - 1)
>
> +#define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK
> +#define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET	((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET << 1) - 1)
> +
>   #endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LIMITS_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..49af2c821f79
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Landlock LSM - Filesystem management and hooks
> + *
> + * Copyright © 2016-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/bits.h>
> +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> +#include <linux/dcache.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/limits.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> +#include <linux/mount.h>
> +#include <linux/namei.h>
> +#include <linux/path.h>
> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/stat.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/wait_bit.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
> +#include <linux/thread_info.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +
> +
> +#include "common.h"
> +#include "cred.h"
> +#include "fs.h"
> +#include "limits.h"
> +#include "object.h"
> +#include "ruleset.h"
> +#include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"
> +
> +/* Underlying object management */
> +
> +static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
> +
> +	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
> +	object->underobj = NULL;
> +
> +	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
> +
> +}
> +
> +static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
> +	.release = release_task_object
> +};
> +
> +struct task_struct;
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
> +{
> +	return current;
> +}
> +
> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> +						     u32 access_hierarchy)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> +	LSM_HOOK_INIT(socket_create, hook_socket_create),
> +};
> +
> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void)
> +{
> +	security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks),
> +			LANDLOCK_NAME);
> +}
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..094ac150ac3c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * Landlock LSM - Network management and hooks
> + *
> + * Copyright © 2017-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
> +#define _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
> +
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <asm/current.h>
> +#include <linux/cred.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +
> +#include "common.h"
> +#include "ruleset.h"
> +#include "setup.h"
> +
> +
> +/**
> + * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
> + *
> + * Enable to reference a &struct landlock_object tied to a task (i.e.
> + * underlying object).
> + */
> +struct landlock_task_security {
> +	/**
> +	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
> +	 */
> +	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
> +		const struct task_struct *const task)
> +{
> +	return task->security + landlock_blob_sizes.lbs_task;
> +}
> +
> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void);
> +
> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> +						     u32 access_hierarchy);
> +
> +#endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> index ec72b9262bf3..cec0fd1f83df 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>   #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>   #include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
>
>   #include "limits.h"
>   #include "object.h"
> @@ -27,9 +28,23 @@
>   static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
> +	u16 row, col, rules_types_num;
> +
> +	new_ruleset = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ruleset) +
> +			      sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks),
> +			      GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> +
> +	rules_types_num = LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1;
> +	for (row = 0; row < rules_types_num; row++) {
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[row] = kmalloc(sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks[row]),
> +							 GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> +		for (col = 0; col < num_layers; col++) {
> +			static int count = 1;
> +
> +			new_ruleset->access_masks[row][col] = count++;
> +		}
> +	}
>
> -	new_ruleset = kzalloc(struct_size(new_ruleset, fs_access_masks,
> -				num_layers), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>   	if (!new_ruleset)
>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>   	refcount_set(&new_ruleset->usage, 1);
> @@ -39,21 +54,25 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>   	/*
>   	 * hierarchy = NULL
>   	 * num_rules = 0
> -	 * fs_access_masks[] = 0
> +	 * access_masks[] = 0
>   	 */
>   	return new_ruleset;
>   }
>
> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask)
> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> +						 const u32 net_access_mask)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>
>   	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
> -	if (!fs_access_mask)
> +	if (!fs_access_mask && !net_access_mask)
>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
>   	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
> -	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
> -		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] = fs_access_mask;
> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && fs_access_mask)
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = fs_access_mask;
> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
> +
>   	return new_ruleset;
>   }
>
> @@ -116,11 +135,13 @@ static void build_check_ruleset(void)
>   		.num_rules = ~0,
>   		.num_layers = ~0,
>   	};
> -	typeof(ruleset.fs_access_masks[0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[0][0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[1][0]) net_access_mask = ~0;
>
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_rules < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_RULES);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_layers < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(fs_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(net_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET);
>   }
>
>   /**
> @@ -279,7 +300,10 @@ static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>   		err = -EINVAL;
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   	}
> -	dst->fs_access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->fs_access_masks[0];
> +	/* Copy fs access masks. */
> +	dst->access_masks[0][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0][0];
> +	/* Copy network access masks. */
> +	dst->access_masks[1][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[1][0];
>
>   	/* Merges the @src tree. */
>   	rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
> @@ -337,8 +361,8 @@ static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   	}
>   	/* Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space for the new layer. */
> -	memcpy(child->fs_access_masks, parent->fs_access_masks,
> -			flex_array_size(parent, fs_access_masks, parent->num_layers));
> +	memcpy(child->access_masks, parent->access_masks,
> +			flex_array_size(parent, access_masks, parent->num_layers));
>
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy)) {
>   		err = -EINVAL;
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 2d3ed7ec5a0a..8f4285fab372 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   		 * section.  This is only used by
>   		 * landlock_put_ruleset_deferred() when @usage reaches zero.
>   		 * The fields @lock, @usage, @num_rules, @num_layers and
> -		 * @fs_access_masks are then unused.
> +		 * @access_masks are then unused.
>   		 */
>   		struct work_struct work_free;
>   		struct {
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   			 */
>   			u32 num_layers;
>   			/**
> -			 * @fs_access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
> +			 * @access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
>   			 * actions that are restricted by a ruleset.  A domain
>   			 * saves all layers of merged rulesets in a stack
>   			 * (FAM), starting from the first layer to the last
> @@ -135,12 +135,13 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   			 * layers are set once and never changed for the
>   			 * lifetime of the ruleset.
>   			 */
> -			u16 fs_access_masks[];
> +			u16 *access_masks[];
>   		};
>   	};
>   };
>
> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask);
> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> +						 const u32 net_access_mask);
>
>   void landlock_put_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
>   void landlock_put_ruleset_deferred(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
> diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c
> index f8e8e980454c..91ab06ec8ce0 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/setup.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/setup.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>   #include "fs.h"
>   #include "ptrace.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"
>
>   bool landlock_initialized __lsm_ro_after_init = false;
>
> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>   	.lbs_cred = sizeof(struct landlock_cred_security),
>   	.lbs_inode = sizeof(struct landlock_inode_security),
>   	.lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security),
> +	.lbs_task = sizeof(struct landlock_task_security),
>   };
>
>   static int __init landlock_init(void)
> @@ -28,6 +30,7 @@ static int __init landlock_init(void)
>   	landlock_add_cred_hooks();
>   	landlock_add_ptrace_hooks();
>   	landlock_add_fs_hooks();
> +	landlock_add_net_hooks();
>   	landlock_initialized = true;
>   	pr_info("Up and running.\n");
>   	return 0;
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index 32396962f04d..72cb1b0cb8a9 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>   #include "limits.h"
>   #include "ruleset.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"
>
>   /**
>    * copy_min_struct_from_user - Safe future-proof argument copying
> @@ -73,7 +74,8 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr;
>   	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
> -	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size;
> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr net_beneath_attr;
> +	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size, net_beneath_size;
>
>   	/*
>   	 * For each user space ABI structures, first checks that there is no
> @@ -81,13 +83,18 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>   	 * struct size.
>   	 */
>   	ruleset_size = sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
> +	ruleset_size += sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != ruleset_size);
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 8);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 16);
>
>   	path_beneath_size = sizeof(path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>   	path_beneath_size += sizeof(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != path_beneath_size);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != 12);
> +
> +	net_beneath_size = sizeof(net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != net_beneath_size);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != 8);
>   }
>
>   /* Ruleset handling */
> @@ -174,20 +181,33 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
>
> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer. */
> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for fs. */
>   	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
>   			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_fs),
>   			attr, size);
>   	if (err)
>   		return err;
>
> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for network. */
> +	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
> +			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_net),
> +			attr, size);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
>   	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>   	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
>   			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
> +	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
> +	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_net | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET) !=
> +			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	/* Checks arguments and transforms to kernel struct. */
> -	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
> +	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs,
> +					  ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>   	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>   		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>
> @@ -306,6 +326,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   		const void __user *const, rule_attr, const __u32, flags)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr  net_beneath_attr;
>   	struct path path;
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>   	int res, err;
> @@ -317,47 +338,88 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   	if (flags)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
> -	if (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH)
> +	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
> +	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> -	res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> -			sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> -	if (res)
> -		return -EFAULT;
> -
> -	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> -	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> -	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> -		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> -	 * are ignored in path walks.
> -	 */
> -	if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
> -		err = -ENOMSG;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> +		res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> +				sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> +		if (res)
> +			return -EFAULT;
>   	}
> -	/*
> -	 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> -	 * (ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> -	 */
> -	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) !=
> -			ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) {
> -		err = -EINVAL;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> +		res = copy_from_user(&net_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> +				sizeof(net_beneath_attr));
> +		if (res)
> +			return -EFAULT;
>   	}
>
> -	/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
> -	err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
> -	if (err)
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> +		 * are ignored in path walks.
> +		 */
> +		if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
> +			err = -ENOMSG;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[0][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> +		 */
> +		if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) !=
> +				ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
> +		err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +
> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
> +		err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
> +				path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> +		path_put(&path);
> +	}
>
> -	/* Imports the new rule. */
> -	err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
> -			path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> -	path_put(&path);
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> +		 * are ignored in network actions
> +		 */
> +		if (!net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions) {
> +			err = -ENOMSG;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[1][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> +		 */
> +		if ((net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions | ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) !=
> +				ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
> +		err = landlock_append_net_rule(ruleset, net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
> +	}
>
>   out_put_ruleset:
>   	landlock_put_ruleset(ruleset);
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
> >From 5216f8c21805879cd41d57f858817417669a7f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:04:11 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
>
> Implement socket_create() hook.
> Current prototype can restrict creating two
> types of sockets: INET and UNIX. Its just basic idea
> how Landlock could support network confinement.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> ---
>   security/landlock/net.c      | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   security/landlock/net.h      |   5 +-
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h  |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c |   2 +-
>   4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> index 49af2c821f79..3c6b3a6da322 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/net.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> @@ -42,17 +42,10 @@
>   #include "net.h"
>
>   /* Underlying object management */
> -
>   static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
>   {
> -	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
> -
>   	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
>   	object->underobj = NULL;
> -
> -	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
> -	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
> -
>   }
>
>   static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
> @@ -66,15 +59,143 @@ static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
>   	return current;
>   }
>
> +static struct landlock_object *get_task_object(struct task_struct *const task)
> +{
> +	struct landlock_object *object, *new_object;
> +	struct landlock_task_security *task_sec = landlock_task(task);
> +
> +	object = task_sec->object;
> +	if (object)
> +		if (likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage)))
> +			return object;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If there is no object tied to task, then create a new one.
> +	 */
> +	new_object = landlock_create_object(&landlock_net_underops, task);
> +	if (IS_ERR(new_object))
> +		return new_object;
> +
> +	task_sec->object = new_object;
> +	return new_object;
> +}
> +
> +
>   int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> -						     u32 access_hierarchy)
> +						     u32 access_rights)
>   {
> -	return 0;
> +	int err;
> +	struct landlock_object *object;
> +
> +	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET & ~ruleset->access_masks[1][0];
> +
> +	object = get_task_object(get_current_task());
> +	if (IS_ERR(object))
> +		return PTR_ERR(object);
> +	mutex_lock(&ruleset->lock);
> +	err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, access_rights << 16);
> +	mutex_unlock(&ruleset->lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * No need to check for an error because landlock_insert_rule()
> +	 * increments the refcount for the new object if needed.
> +	 */
> +	landlock_put_object(object);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +/* Access-control management */
> +static inline bool unmask_layers(
> +		const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +		const u32 access_request, u64 layer_mask)
> +{
> +	const struct landlock_rule *rule;
> +	const struct task_struct *task;
> +	size_t i;
> +	bool allowed = false;
> +
> +	task = get_current_task();
> +
> +	rule = landlock_find_rule(domain, landlock_task(task)->object);
> +
> +	/* Grant access if there is no rule for an oject */
> +	if (!rule)
> +		return allowed = true;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * An access is granted if, for each policy layer, at least one rule
> +	 * encountered on network actions requested,
> +	 * regardless of their position in the layer stack.  We must then check
> +	 * the remaining layers, from the first added layer to
> +	 * the last one.
> +	 */
> +	for (i = 0; i < rule->num_layers; i++) {
> +		const struct landlock_layer *const layer = &rule->layers[i];
> +		const u64 layer_level = BIT_ULL(layer->level - 1);
> +
> +		/* Checks that the layer grants access to the request. */
> +		if ((layer->access & (access_request << 16)) == (access_request << 16)) {
> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
> +			allowed = true;
> +
> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
> +				return allowed;
> +		} else {
> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
> +
> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
> +				return allowed;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return allowed;
> +}
> +
> +static int check_socket_access(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +							 int family)
> +{
> +	bool allowed = false;
> +	u64 layer_mask;
> +	size_t i;
> +
> +	/* Make sure all layers can be checked. */
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask) < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
> +
> +	if (!family)
> +		return 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain))
> +		return 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->num_layers < 1))
> +		return -EACCES;
> +
> +	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested
> +	 * socket family.
> +	 */
> +	layer_mask = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
> +		if (domain->access_masks[1][i] & family)
> +			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
> +	}
> +	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
> +	if (layer_mask == 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We need to walk through all the hierarchy to not miss any relevant
> +	 * restriction.
> +	 */
> +	allowed = unmask_layers(domain, family, layer_mask);
> +
> +	return allowed ? 0 : -EACCES;
>   }
>
>   static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
>   {
> -	return 0;
> +	const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom = landlock_get_current_domain();
> +
> +	if (!dom)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return check_socket_access(dom, family);
>   }
>
>   static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
> index 094ac150ac3c..2036272ff106 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/net.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>   #include "ruleset.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
>
> -
>   /**
>    * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
>    *
> @@ -32,9 +31,9 @@
>    */
>   struct landlock_task_security {
>   	/**
> -	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
> +	 * @object: Pointer to an allocated object.
>   	 */
> -	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
> +	struct landlock_object *object;
>   };
>
>   static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 8f4285fab372..cec3fc489531 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct landlock_layer {
>   	 * @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
>   	 * relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
>   	 */
> -	u16 access;
> +	u32 access;
>   };
>
>   /**
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index 72cb1b0cb8a9..27653e7bf201 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
>   	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
> -	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
> +		(rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>
>   	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Paul Moore Dec. 10, 2021, 11:01 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:57 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
> As I think you've realized, *sockets are not objects*. There
> isn't a way to justify them as objects without introducing
> ethereal or magical subjects that don't exist. Sockets are
> part of a process. OK, it's not that simple, and it would be
> foolish to deny that a socket may have security relevant
> properties. But they aren't objects.
>
> I strongly recommend that you follow Smack's example and
> use the sending task and receiving task attributes to make
> the decision. You may find that storing that information
> in the socket security blob is convenient.
>
> BTW - not everyone agrees with me on this topic. I'll leave
> the misguided to make their own arguments. ;)

I'm running low on my lets-argue-on-the-internet motivation today, but
I feel like I'm being goaded into some sort of comment so I will
simply offer SELinux as a rebuttal to Casey's comments.  I think that
either approach can be acceptable, it depends on how your security
model works and your comfort level with the various tradeoffs
associated with each approach.  I personally prefer the approach
SELinux has taken (minus some of the compat cruft we are saddled with,
not to mention that restrictions handed to use from netdev), but I'll
admit a certain level of bias in this.

--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 13, 2021, 8:29 a.m. UTC | #3
Hi Konstantin,

On 10/12/2021 08:21, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> According the main idea of Landlock's author Mickaёl Salun the goal
> of Landlock is to enable to restrict ambient rights
> (e.g. global filesystem access) for a set of processes.
> Landlock is stackable LSM. Landlock empowers any process,
> including unprivileged ones, to securely restrict themselves.
> This feature could be very helpful in containerized environment
> and different sandboxed applications.
> 
> Now Landlock supports a number of filesytem access rights:
> 	- file execute
> 	- write to file
> 	- read file
> 	- make directory
>   and etc.
> 
> So, this PoC patch provides the basic idea for Landlock network
> access-control implementation.
> eBPF-based sandboxes like BPFcontain and BPFbox sandboxes confine
> network traffic at the socket level. Network rules grant access
> to various socket operations on the IPv4 and IPv6 socket families.
> Socket operations could be grouped by different use cases:
> 	• Client, server.
> 	• Send and receive categories.
> BPFbox operation example:
> 	- connect
> 	- bind
> 	- accept
> 	- listen
> 	- send
>   and etc.
> 
> Landlock network enhancement should follow similar logic
> like in mentioned sandboxes!

I think this list is inspired from SELinux: 
https://selinuxproject.org/page/ObjectClassesPerms#common_socket
Other LSMs (e.g. Smack as mention by Casey, but also AppArmor and 
Tomoyo) may be a good source of inspiration too.

I think the most relevant access-rights for Landlock are those used by 
Capsicum: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rights&sektion=4

One thing to keep in mind is test coverage. At the end, all access 
rights must be tested and with a good kernel coverage, see 
tools/testing/selftests/landlock . This means that the more access 
rights are handled, the more work/time to write tests, and the more 
work/time for review. Depending on how straightforward it is to handle 
these access rights and test them, you may want to start with a subset 
of them.

It may make sense to support all of these access rights but for only one 
network domain. At the same time, we should get confident that these 
access rights can be implemented, for the Landlock use case, in a 
consistent way whatever the network domain is.

> 
> Implementation related issues
> =============================
> 
> 1. Its needed to add a new type of rules:
> 
> enum landlock_rule_type {
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,

A rule type identifies the type of the kernel object (here socket or a 
set of addresses) and also the way to describe it (e.g. subnet, path for 
a UNIX socket…) along with associated access rights. In a nutshell, it 
is an unique identifier for a landlock_*_attr struct type.

> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM

This must not be in the public UAPI. See security/landlock/limits.h

> }
> 
> struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
> 	_u64 handled_access_fs;
> 	_u64 handled_actions_net;

Correct, but it makes sense to name it handled_access_net instead (as in 
your current code).

> }
> 
> struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {

"beneath" is not appropriate here. E.g. using landlock_net_cidr4_attr 
looks good to identify IPv4 subnets.

> 	/**
> 	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions
> 	 * for a current process
> 	 */
> 	__u64 allowed_actions;

You need a way to describe a network object (e.g. a subnet) and also the 
communication semantic (e.g. TCP, UPD…). We should take inspiration from 
names used in the socket(2) man page.

> }
> 
> 
> 2. Added 2 defines for network allowed actions.
> Now the current prototype patch support creating 2 types
> of sockets - unix and inet:
> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)

It should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_{BIND,CREATE} or something similar. The 
name UNIX and INET should not appear here but only in the 
landlock_net_cidr4_attr.

> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
> 
> Its needed to discuss what kind of sockets types and actions
> should be supported in MINIMAL version!!!

I think IPv4 UDP/TCP sockets are the best way to go, to not rely on 
process identification and to be sure that access rights are consistent 
with different protocols.

You can start with access rights that are easy to implement, and split 
patches at least per use of hook or something that makes sense from an 
implementation point of view. Keep in mind that all access rights must 
be tested, so it may be wise to start with a few. Tests must be 
submitted within the same patch series in dedicated patches. See the 
tools/testing/selftest/landlock files. Good tests should take more time 
to write than kernel code.

> 
> 
> 3. Syscalls interfaces.
> Current syscall interface look like enough for support different
> rule types, but it’s needed to modify some internal functions
> to support it.
> 
> As an example:
> struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> 						 const u32 net_access_mask)
> {
> 	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
> 
> 	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
> 	if (!access_mask && !net_access_mask )
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
> 	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && access_mask)
> 		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = access_mask;
> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)

You can wrap the two mask tests with only one if(!IS_ERR(new_ruleset)).

> 		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;

We need to be careful about type confusion and a two-dimensional array 
is not a good fit for a ruleset.

> 
> 	return new_ruleset;
> }
> 
> In future, it's to use an array access_mask[LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1]
> enum landlock_rule_type {
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
> 
> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
> };
> 
> 
> 4. Kernel objects.
> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock rules.
> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:

For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We can't 
safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the file 
system changes, and then the rules must change with it.

To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can rely 
on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP 
address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or receveing an 
UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come from 
a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the existing 
file system identification mechanism and probably extend the current FS 
access rights.

> 
> int sock_create_lite(int family, int type, int protocol,
> 		     struct socket **res)
> {
> 	int err;
> 	struct socket *sock = NULL;
> 
> 	err = security_socket_create(family, type, protocol, 1);
> 	if (err)
> 		goto out;
> 	...
> 
> 	sock = sock_alloc();
> 	if (!sock) {
> 		err = -ENOMEM;
> 		goto out;
> 	}
> 	...
> }
> And all other socket rules can be tied to a process object, cause
> it would be easier to maintaint and control it.

A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet 
rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on subnets/protocols.

> For containerized application a user could create a bunch container with
> individual network restriction rules tied to them.
> 
> This solution (what kernel object to use) must be established first,
> cause the following design depends on it.
> 
> 
> 5. Landlock internal structures modifications.
> 
>   - In further patches its needed network_rules structure in landlock_layer
> structure to support network rules:
> 
> 	struct landlock_layer {
> 		/**
> 		* @level: Position of this layer in the layer stack.
> 		*/
> 		u16 level;
> 		/**
> 		* @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
> 		* relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
> 		*/
> 		u16 access;
> 
> 		struct network_rules;

The current landlock_layer is designed to handle different types of 
actions relative to the object type. This struct doesn't need to be 
modified.

> 	};
> 
> The architecture of struct network_rules has not been established yet,
> and it could be like this :
> 
> 	struct network_rules {
> 		Socket_domains = {AF_UNIX, AF_INET
> 		Socket_types = {SOCK_STREAM, ...
> 		Socket_protocols = {IP, TCP, ...
> 		Socket_actions = {"connect", "bind"
> 		IP_address_allowed[]
> 	}

To sum up, for IPv4 restrictions, we need a new rule type identified 
with LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_CIDR4. This will handle a new
struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr {
     __u64 allowed_access;
     __u32 address; // IPv4
     __u8 prefix; // From 0 to 32
     __u8 type; // SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM
     __u16 port;
} __attribute__((packed));
// https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4632

This data structure (*_attr) identifies actions (allowed accesses) on 
objects (subnet and protocol).

For UNIX abstract sockets, we might have LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_UNIX_ABSTRACT 
handling something similar to
struct landlock_net_unix_abstract_attr {
     __u64 allowed_access;
     char *abstract_path;
};

It may not make sense to have Landlock rules for unnamed UNIX sockets 
(socket pairs) for now. Indeed, it would require to identify local peers.

> 
>   - Using pointer to FAM arrays of different types of access masks: fs,
> network, ipc etc.
> 
> 	struct landlock_ruleset {
> 
> 		struct rb_root root;
> 		...
> 		...
> 
> 		u16 *access_masks[];

u16 access_masks[] should be just fine.

> 	};
> 
> 
> This is just the basic ideas for the open discussion.
> Please give your opinion and suggestion.

It would be easier to review if you (mainly) describe code as comments 
in the patches (or commit messages), but please don't duplicate it in 
the cover letter. Most of my above comments could be duplicated in the 
patch comments below.

> 
> Konstantin Meskhidze (2):
>    landlock: base template for network hooks
>    landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
> 
>   include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++
>   security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>   security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>   security/landlock/net.c       | 209 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/net.h       |  50 ++++++++
>   security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++--
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h   |  11 +-
>   security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++-------
>   10 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
> 
> --
> 2.25.1

It seems that you manually cancatenated your three patches. The git 
format-patch and send-email commands enable to create proper patch 
series (i.e. one email per patch + cover letter) which is the way to 
submit kernel patches and eases review. See 
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html 
and https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch

More generally, please take a look at 
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html 
and especially the fifth part.
The latest Landlock patch series can give you an idea of the expected 
format: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210422154123.13086-1-mic@digikod.net/

> 
>>From 8f1dff03a9722601334a31ee3c6680240a0e6e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:18:23 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] landlock: base template for network hooks
> 
> Add a new rule type LANDLOCK_RULE_NET to
> landlock_rule_type.
> Add landlock_net_beneath_attr to support network
> allowed actions.
> Add two network flags for socket creation confinement:
> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK,
> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK.
> Update Landlock syscalls to support network rules
> injections.
> Update landlock_ruleset structure to support network access mask.
> Add net.c and net.h files with network template functions.
> Add new blob size with lbs_task and landlock_add_net_hooks
> into landlock_init().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> ---
>   include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>   security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>   security/landlock/net.c       |  88 +++++++++++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/net.h       |  51 +++++++++++++
>   security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++++---
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h   |   9 ++-
>   security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   10 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>   create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
> 
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> index b3d952067f59..7d980b55d345 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
>   	 * compatibility reasons.
>   	 */
>   	__u64 handled_access_fs;
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @handled_actions_net: Bitmask of actions (cf. `Network flags`_)

@handled_access_net

> +	 * that is handled by this ruleset and should then be forbidden if no
> +	 * rule explicitly allow them.  This is needed for backward
> +	 * compatibility reasons.
> +	 */
> +	__u64 handled_access_net;
>   };
> 
>   /*
> @@ -46,6 +54,18 @@ enum landlock_rule_type {
>   	 * landlock_path_beneath_attr .
>   	 */
>   	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_NET: Type of a &struct
> +	 * landlock_net_beneath_attr .
> +	 */
> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,

Not an appropriate name (see comment above).

> +
> +	/**
> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM: Number of
> +	 * Landlock	rules type: fs, network, ipc ect.
> +	 */
> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM

Must not be in the UAPI (see comment above).

>   };
> 
>   /**
> @@ -70,6 +90,22 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>   	 */
>   } __attribute__((packed));
> 
> +/**
> + * struct landlock_path_beneath_attr - Network actions definition
> + *
> + * Argument of sys_landlock_add_rule().
> + */
> +struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {

Should be struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr or similar.

> +	/**
> +	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions for a current process
> +	 */
> +	__u64 allowed_actions;

See suggested fields for landlock_net_cidr4_attr above.

> +	/*
> +	 * This struct is packed to avoid trailing reserved members.
> +	 * Cf. security/landlock/syscalls.c:build_check_abi()
> +	 */
> +} __attribute__((packed));

No need for the packed attribute here.

> +
>   /**
>    * DOC: fs_access
>    *
> @@ -134,4 +170,37 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>   #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK			(1ULL << 11)
>   #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM			(1ULL << 12)
> 
> +/**
> + * DOC: net_actions
> + *
> + * A set of actions on kernel objects may be defined by an attribute (e.g.
> + * &struct landlock_net_beneath_attr) including a bitmask of access.
> + *
> + * Network flags
> + * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> + *
> + * These flags enable to restrict a sandboxed process to a set of actions on
> + * network actions.

Need some update.

> + *
> + * A process can only create these type sockets with allowed actions:
> + *
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE...: Create a unix/inet socket.
> + *
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a UNIX domain
> + *   socket.
> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_INET_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a IPv4 Internet
> + *   protocols domain socket.
> + *
> + * .. warning::
> + *
> + *   It is currently not possible to restrict some network-related actions
> + *   accessible through these syscall families:   accept(2), bind(2),
> + *   close(2), connect(2), fcntl(2),getpeername(2), getsockname(2),
> + *   getsockopt(2), listen(2), read(2), recv(2), select(2), send(2),
> + *   shutdown(2), socketpair(2),
> + *   Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them.

Please don't copy unrelated documentation.

> + */
> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)

These accesses are not appropriate (see comment above).

> +
>   #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_LANDLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/Makefile b/security/landlock/Makefile
> index 7bbd2f413b3e..afa44baaa83a 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/Makefile
> +++ b/security/landlock/Makefile
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>   obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) := landlock.o
> 
>   landlock-y := setup.o syscalls.o object.o ruleset.o \
> -	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o
> +	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o net.o
> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
> index 97b8e421f617..bb5967fc5dd4 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int landlock_append_fs_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
>   	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
> -	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->fs_access_masks[0];
> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->access_masks[0][0];

We should rename fs_access_masks to access_masks but keep it as a 
one-dimensional array and identify the type of the access (file system 
or network) with e.g. with the 16th (upper) bit which would be checked 
every time accesses are used thanks to a dedicated helper, and…

>   	object = get_inode_object(d_backing_inode(path->dentry));
>   	if (IS_ERR(object))
>   		return PTR_ERR(object);
> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
>   	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested accesses. */
>   	layer_mask = 0;
>   	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {

…it would then require to exclude network access layers here.

> -		if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & access_request)
> +		if (domain->access_masks[0][i] & access_request)
>   			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
>   	}
>   	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/limits.h b/security/landlock/limits.h
> index 2a0a1095ee27..56f883530545 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/limits.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/limits.h
> @@ -18,4 +18,7 @@
>   #define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS		LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM
>   #define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS		((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS << 1) - 1)
> 
> +#define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK

No FS here. I guess you'll like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE.

Accesses/suffixes should be:
- CREATE
- ACCEPT
- BIND
- LISTEN
- CONNECT
- RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
- SEND
- SHUTDOWN
- GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
- SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)

> +#define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET	((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET << 1) - 1)
> +
>   #endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LIMITS_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..49af2c821f79
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> +/*
> + * Landlock LSM - Filesystem management and hooks
> + *
> + * Copyright © 2016-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/bits.h>
> +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
> +#include <linux/dcache.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/limits.h>
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> +#include <linux/mount.h>
> +#include <linux/namei.h>
> +#include <linux/path.h>
> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +#include <linux/stat.h>
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/wait_bit.h>
> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
> +#include <linux/thread_info.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +
> +
> +#include "common.h"
> +#include "cred.h"
> +#include "fs.h"
> +#include "limits.h"
> +#include "object.h"
> +#include "ruleset.h"
> +#include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"

Please review all the included files and remove those that are not 
needed, and keep the explicit list of directly required ones (i.e. *not* 
removing those that are indirectly included).

> +
> +/* Underlying object management */
> +
> +static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
> +
> +	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */

Please use full sentences with third person.

> +	object->underobj = NULL;
> +
> +	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);

We need a full explanation of how this should work (object owners, 
locking, RCU window… or why such mechanism is not required) to protect 
against concurrent accesses and race conditions.

> +
> +}
> +
> +static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
> +	.release = release_task_object

Do we need this?

> +};
> +
> +struct task_struct;
> +
> +static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
> +{
> +	return current;

Why such helper?

> +}
> +
> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> +						     u32 access_hierarchy)
> +{
> +	return 0; > +}
> +
> +static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
> +{
> +	return 0;

This hook doesn't seem to be needed in this patch, they add boilerplate 
for no value. Try to only add the minimal required code for each patch.

> +}
> +
> +static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> +	LSM_HOOK_INIT(socket_create, hook_socket_create),
> +};
> +
> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void)
> +{
> +	security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks),
> +			LANDLOCK_NAME);
> +}
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..094ac150ac3c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
> +/*
> + * Landlock LSM - Network management and hooks
> + *
> + * Copyright © 2017-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
> +#define _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
> +
> +#include <linux/fs.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <asm/current.h>
> +#include <linux/cred.h>
> +#include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
> +
> +#include "common.h"
> +#include "ruleset.h"
> +#include "setup.h"

Please clean up the included files.

> +
> +
> +/**
> + * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
> + *
> + * Enable to reference a &struct landlock_object tied to a task (i.e.
> + * underlying object).
> + */
> +struct landlock_task_security {
> +	/**
> +	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
> +	 */
> +	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
> +};
> +
> +static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
> +		const struct task_struct *const task)
> +{
> +	return task->security + landlock_blob_sizes.lbs_task;
> +}
> +
> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void);
> +
> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> +						     u32 access_hierarchy);
> +
> +#endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H */
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> index ec72b9262bf3..cec0fd1f83df 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>   #include <linux/slab.h>
>   #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>   #include <linux/workqueue.h>
> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>



> 
>   #include "limits.h"
>   #include "object.h"
> @@ -27,9 +28,23 @@
>   static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
> +	u16 row, col, rules_types_num;
> +
> +	new_ruleset = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ruleset) +
> +			      sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks),
> +			      GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);

Why do you replace kzalloc with kmalloc?

> +
> +	rules_types_num = LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1;
> +	for (row = 0; row < rules_types_num; row++) {
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[row] = kmalloc(sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks[row]),
> +							 GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> +		for (col = 0; col < num_layers; col++) {
> +			static int count = 1;
> +
> +			new_ruleset->access_masks[row][col] = count++;
> +		}
> +	}

This extra complexity is not needed.

> 
> -	new_ruleset = kzalloc(struct_size(new_ruleset, fs_access_masks,
> -				num_layers), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);

This call is just fine if you rename fs_access_masks as I commented above.

>   	if (!new_ruleset)
>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>   	refcount_set(&new_ruleset->usage, 1);
> @@ -39,21 +54,25 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>   	/*
>   	 * hierarchy = NULL
>   	 * num_rules = 0
> -	 * fs_access_masks[] = 0
> +	 * access_masks[] = 0
>   	 */
>   	return new_ruleset;
>   }
> 
> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask)
> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> +						 const u32 net_access_mask)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
> 
>   	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
> -	if (!fs_access_mask)
> +	if (!fs_access_mask && !net_access_mask)

This check is not correct.

>   		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
>   	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
> -	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
> -		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] = fs_access_mask;
> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && fs_access_mask)
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = fs_access_mask;

This needs to be updated and simplified.

> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
> +
>   	return new_ruleset;
>   }
> 
> @@ -116,11 +135,13 @@ static void build_check_ruleset(void)
>   		.num_rules = ~0,
>   		.num_layers = ~0,
>   	};
> -	typeof(ruleset.fs_access_masks[0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[0][0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[1][0]) net_access_mask = ~0;
> 
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_rules < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_RULES);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_layers < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(fs_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(net_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET);

Good to update the build checks.

>   }
> 
>   /**
> @@ -279,7 +300,10 @@ static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>   		err = -EINVAL;
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   	}
> -	dst->fs_access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->fs_access_masks[0];
> +	/* Copy fs access masks. */
> +	dst->access_masks[0][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0][0];
> +	/* Copy network access masks. */
> +	dst->access_masks[1][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[1][0];

This will be simplified.

> 
>   	/* Merges the @src tree. */
>   	rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
> @@ -337,8 +361,8 @@ static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>   		goto out_unlock;
>   	}
>   	/* Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space for the new layer. */
> -	memcpy(child->fs_access_masks, parent->fs_access_masks,
> -			flex_array_size(parent, fs_access_masks, parent->num_layers));
> +	memcpy(child->access_masks, parent->access_masks,
> +			flex_array_size(parent, access_masks, parent->num_layers));
> 
>   	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy)) {
>   		err = -EINVAL;
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 2d3ed7ec5a0a..8f4285fab372 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   		 * section.  This is only used by
>   		 * landlock_put_ruleset_deferred() when @usage reaches zero.
>   		 * The fields @lock, @usage, @num_rules, @num_layers and
> -		 * @fs_access_masks are then unused.
> +		 * @access_masks are then unused.
>   		 */
>   		struct work_struct work_free;
>   		struct {
> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   			 */
>   			u32 num_layers;
>   			/**
> -			 * @fs_access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
> +			 * @access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem

Need to update the documentation, including how to differentiate access 
types. It would probably require to tweak num_layers or add a new field.

>   			 * actions that are restricted by a ruleset.  A domain
>   			 * saves all layers of merged rulesets in a stack
>   			 * (FAM), starting from the first layer to the last
> @@ -135,12 +135,13 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>   			 * layers are set once and never changed for the
>   			 * lifetime of the ruleset.
>   			 */
> -			u16 fs_access_masks[];
> +			u16 *access_masks[];

u16 access_masks[];

>   		};
>   	};
>   };
> 
> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask);
> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
> +						 const u32 net_access_mask);
> 
>   void landlock_put_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
>   void landlock_put_ruleset_deferred(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
> diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c
> index f8e8e980454c..91ab06ec8ce0 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/setup.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/setup.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>   #include "fs.h"
>   #include "ptrace.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"
> 
>   bool landlock_initialized __lsm_ro_after_init = false;
> 
> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>   	.lbs_cred = sizeof(struct landlock_cred_security),
>   	.lbs_inode = sizeof(struct landlock_inode_security),
>   	.lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security),
> +	.lbs_task = sizeof(struct landlock_task_security),
>   };
> 
>   static int __init landlock_init(void)
> @@ -28,6 +30,7 @@ static int __init landlock_init(void)
>   	landlock_add_cred_hooks();
>   	landlock_add_ptrace_hooks();
>   	landlock_add_fs_hooks();
> +	landlock_add_net_hooks();
>   	landlock_initialized = true;
>   	pr_info("Up and running.\n");
>   	return 0;
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index 32396962f04d..72cb1b0cb8a9 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>   #include "limits.h"
>   #include "ruleset.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
> +#include "net.h"
> 
>   /**
>    * copy_min_struct_from_user - Safe future-proof argument copying
> @@ -73,7 +74,8 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr;
>   	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
> -	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size;
> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr net_beneath_attr;

No need for a "beneath" here.

> +	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size, net_beneath_size;

Please don't change the declaration order.

> 
>   	/*
>   	 * For each user space ABI structures, first checks that there is no
> @@ -81,13 +83,18 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>   	 * struct size.
>   	 */
>   	ruleset_size = sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
> +	ruleset_size += sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != ruleset_size);
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 8);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 16);
> 
>   	path_beneath_size = sizeof(path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>   	path_beneath_size += sizeof(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != path_beneath_size);
>   	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != 12);
> +
> +	net_beneath_size = sizeof(net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != net_beneath_size);
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != 8);
>   }
> 
>   /* Ruleset handling */
> @@ -174,20 +181,33 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   	}
> 
> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer. */
> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for fs. */
>   	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
>   			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_fs),
>   			attr, size);
>   	if (err)
>   		return err;
> 
> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for network. */
> +	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
> +			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_net),

Why two calls to copy_min_struct_from_user()? The first one is now useless.

> +			attr, size);
> +	if (err)
> +		return err;
> +
>   	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>   	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
>   			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
> +	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
> +	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_net | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET) !=
> +			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>   	/* Checks arguments and transforms to kernel struct. */
> -	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
> +	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs,
> +					  ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>   	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>   		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> 
> @@ -306,6 +326,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   		const void __user *const, rule_attr, const __u32, flags)
>   {
>   	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr  net_beneath_attr;
>   	struct path path;
>   	struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>   	int res, err;
> @@ -317,47 +338,88 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   	if (flags)
>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
> -	if (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH)
> +	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
> +	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> -	res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> -			sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> -	if (res)
> -		return -EFAULT;
> -
> -	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> -	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> -	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> -		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> -	 * are ignored in path walks.
> -	 */
> -	if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
> -		err = -ENOMSG;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {

Please use a switch statement and set temporary pointers in this 
statement to not duplicate the below code.

> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> +		res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> +				sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
> +		if (res)
> +			return -EFAULT;
>   	}
> -	/*
> -	 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> -	 * (ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> -	 */
> -	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) !=
> -			ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) {
> -		err = -EINVAL;
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
> +		res = copy_from_user(&net_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
> +				sizeof(net_beneath_attr));
> +		if (res)
> +			return -EFAULT;
>   	}
> 
> -	/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
> -	err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
> -	if (err)
> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> +		 * are ignored in path walks.
> +		 */
> +		if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
> +			err = -ENOMSG;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}

Most of the code can be shared, no need to duplicate.

> +		/*
> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[0][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> +		 */
> +		if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) !=
> +				ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
> +		err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
> +		if (err)
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +
> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
> +		err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
> +				path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> +		path_put(&path);
> +	}
> 
> -	/* Imports the new rule. */
> -	err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
> -			path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
> -	path_put(&path);
> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
> +		 * are ignored in network actions
> +		 */
> +		if (!net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions) {
> +			err = -ENOMSG;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +		/*
> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[1][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
> +		 */
> +		if ((net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions | ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) !=
> +				ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) {
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
> +		}
> +
> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
> +		err = landlock_append_net_rule(ruleset, net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
> +	}
> 
>   out_put_ruleset:
>   	landlock_put_ruleset(ruleset);
> --
> 2.25.1
> 
> 
>>From 5216f8c21805879cd41d57f858817417669a7f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:04:11 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
> 
> Implement socket_create() hook.
> Current prototype can restrict creating two
> types of sockets: INET and UNIX. Its just basic idea
> how Landlock could support network confinement.

All commit messages should contain a set of selfsufficient paragraphs 
with useful full sentences describing at least the context (with 
potential background), the purpose of the patch, and how it is acheived. 
Implementation details can be explain as comments in the patch.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> ---
>   security/landlock/net.c      | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>   security/landlock/net.h      |   5 +-
>   security/landlock/ruleset.h  |   2 +-
>   security/landlock/syscalls.c |   2 +-
>   4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
> index 49af2c821f79..3c6b3a6da322 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/net.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
> @@ -42,17 +42,10 @@
>   #include "net.h"
> 
>   /* Underlying object management */
> -
>   static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
>   {
> -	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
> -
>   	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
>   	object->underobj = NULL;
> -
> -	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
> -	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);

What is happening here?

> -
>   }
> 
>   static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
> @@ -66,15 +59,143 @@ static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
>   	return current;
>   }
> 
> +static struct landlock_object *get_task_object(struct task_struct *const task)
> +{
> +	struct landlock_object *object, *new_object;
> +	struct landlock_task_security *task_sec = landlock_task(task);
> +
> +	object = task_sec->object;
> +	if (object)
> +		if (likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage)))
> +			return object;

There is a race condition here.

> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If there is no object tied to task, then create a new one.
> +	 */
> +	new_object = landlock_create_object(&landlock_net_underops, task);
> +	if (IS_ERR(new_object))
> +		return new_object;
> +
> +	task_sec->object = new_object;
> +	return new_object;
> +}
> +
> +
>   int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
> -						     u32 access_hierarchy)
> +						     u32 access_rights)

Please update previous patches accordingly.

>   {
> -	return 0;
> +	int err;
> +	struct landlock_object *object;
> +
> +	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET & ~ruleset->access_masks[1][0];
> +
> +	object = get_task_object(get_current_task());

This patch series tries to restrict socket creation in a sandbox except 
for the processes that create a rule that excludes themselves. This 
doesn't fit with the Landlock model. This information is key to 
understand this patch series (what it does and how) and it is missing 
from the introduction (cover letter and this patch description).

What network control access rules would be useful to is to block network 
access to all processes in a sandbox, except when receiving or sending 
packets to or from a set of specific subnets (e.g. IPs) with a set of 
specific protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) and ports (e.g. 80, 443). In this 
case, objects could be identified with IPs, protocols and ports.

> +	if (IS_ERR(object))
> +		return PTR_ERR(object);
> +	mutex_lock(&ruleset->lock);
> +	err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, access_rights << 16);

Why this shift? If this is legitimate, all such shift should be 
self-documented with an (inlined) function helper.

> +	mutex_unlock(&ruleset->lock);
> +	/*
> +	 * No need to check for an error because landlock_insert_rule()
> +	 * increments the refcount for the new object if needed.
> +	 */
> +	landlock_put_object(object);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +/* Access-control management */
> +static inline bool unmask_layers(
> +		const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +		const u32 access_request, u64 layer_mask)
> +{
> +	const struct landlock_rule *rule;
> +	const struct task_struct *task;
> +	size_t i;
> +	bool allowed = false;
> +
> +	task = get_current_task();
> +

Please take a look at the RCU documentation. The sparse tool and 
CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_* options can help.

> +	rule = landlock_find_rule(domain, landlock_task(task)->object);
> +
> +	/* Grant access if there is no rule for an oject */

typos

> +	if (!rule)
> +		return allowed = true;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * An access is granted if, for each policy layer, at least one rule
> +	 * encountered on network actions requested,
> +	 * regardless of their position in the layer stack.  We must then check
> +	 * the remaining layers, from the first added layer to
> +	 * the last one.
> +	 */

There is a lot of duplicated code. This should not be the case.

> +	for (i = 0; i < rule->num_layers; i++) {
> +		const struct landlock_layer *const layer = &rule->layers[i];
> +		const u64 layer_level = BIT_ULL(layer->level - 1);
> +
> +		/* Checks that the layer grants access to the request. */
> +		if ((layer->access & (access_request << 16)) == (access_request << 16)) {
> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
> +			allowed = true;
> +
> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
> +				return allowed;
> +		} else {
> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
> +
> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
> +				return allowed;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	return allowed;
> +}
> +
> +static int check_socket_access(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
> +							 int family)
> +{
> +	bool allowed = false;
> +	u64 layer_mask;
> +	size_t i;
> +
> +	/* Make sure all layers can be checked. */
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask) < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
> +
> +	if (!family)
> +		return 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain))
> +		return 0;
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->num_layers < 1))
> +		return -EACCES;
> +
> +	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested
> +	 * socket family.
> +	 */
> +	layer_mask = 0;
> +	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
> +		if (domain->access_masks[1][i] & family)
> +			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
> +	}
> +	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
> +	if (layer_mask == 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We need to walk through all the hierarchy to not miss any relevant
> +	 * restriction.
> +	 */

Please don't blindly copy-paste code, check that it still makes sense, 
and update all related comments.

> +	allowed = unmask_layers(domain, family, layer_mask);

Not a good idea to directly use "family" as an access request. You 
defined one but don't use it here. Are you sure it works as expected?

> +
> +	return allowed ? 0 : -EACCES;
>   }
> 
>   static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
>   {
> -	return 0;
> +	const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom = landlock_get_current_domain();
> +
> +	if (!dom)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	return check_socket_access(dom, family);
>   }
> 
>   static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
> index 094ac150ac3c..2036272ff106 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/net.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>   #include "ruleset.h"
>   #include "setup.h"
> 
> -

Don't introduce fixes for previous patches but rebase them.

>   /**
>    * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
>    *
> @@ -32,9 +31,9 @@
>    */
>   struct landlock_task_security {
>   	/**
> -	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
> +	 * @object: Pointer to an allocated object.
>   	 */
> -	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
> +	struct landlock_object *object;

Same here.

>   };
> 
>   static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> index 8f4285fab372..cec3fc489531 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct landlock_layer {
>   	 * @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
>   	 * relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
>   	 */
> -	u16 access;
> +	u32 access;

There is no need to change this size. As explained in the comment, this 
struct is dedicated per object, and then per type.

>   };
> 
>   /**
> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> index 72cb1b0cb8a9..27653e7bf201 100644
> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
>   	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
> -	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
> +		(rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))

Please squash such fixes in the corresponding previous patch.

>   		return -EINVAL;
> 
>   	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> --
> 2.25.1
> 

Thanks for this initial RFC Konstantin, this review should help you 
build the next one.

Regards,
  Mickaël
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 14, 2021, 11:51 a.m. UTC | #4
On 14/12/2021 04:49, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> Hi Mickaёl.
> I've been thinking about your reply:
> 
>> 4. Kernel objects.
>> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock rules.
>> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
>> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
>> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
>> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
>> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
>> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
> 
> - For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We can't
> - safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the file
> - system changes, and then the rules must change with it.
> 
> - To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can rely
> - on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP
> - address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or receveing an
> - UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come from
> - a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the existing
> - file system identification mechanism and probably extend the current FS
> - access rights.
> - A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet
> - rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on subnets/protocols.
> 
> In current Landlock version inodes are the objects to tie rules to.
> For network you are saying that we can rely on stateless rule definitions and
> rules should be tied to subnets/protocols, not to processes' task_struct objects.
> Cause Landlock architecture requires all rules to be tied to a different
> kernel objects, and when LSM hooks are caught there must be search
> procedure completed in a ruleset's red-black tree structure:
> 	kernel_object -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
> 
> What kind of kernel objects do you mean by subnets/protocols?
> Do you suggest using sockets' inodes in this case or using network rules
> without to be tied to any kernel object?

The subnets/protocols is the definition provided when creating a rule 
(i.e. the object from the user point of view), but the kernel may relies 
on other internal representations. I guess datagram packets would need 
to be matched against IP/port everytime they are received by a sandboxed 
process, but tagging sockets or their underlying inodes for stream 
connections make sense.

I don't have experience in the network LSM hooks though, any input is 
welcome.

> 	socket_inode -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
> 			 OR
> 	landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 4:30 PM
> To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; yusongping <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation
> 
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> On 10/12/2021 08:21, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>> According the main idea of Landlock's author Mickaёl Salun the goal of
>> Landlock is to enable to restrict ambient rights (e.g. global
>> filesystem access) for a set of processes.
>> Landlock is stackable LSM. Landlock empowers any process, including
>> unprivileged ones, to securely restrict themselves.
>> This feature could be very helpful in containerized environment and
>> different sandboxed applications.
>>
>> Now Landlock supports a number of filesytem access rights:
>> 	- file execute
>> 	- write to file
>> 	- read file
>> 	- make directory
>>    and etc.
>>
>> So, this PoC patch provides the basic idea for Landlock network
>> access-control implementation.
>> eBPF-based sandboxes like BPFcontain and BPFbox sandboxes confine
>> network traffic at the socket level. Network rules grant access to
>> various socket operations on the IPv4 and IPv6 socket families.
>> Socket operations could be grouped by different use cases:
>> 	• Client, server.
>> 	• Send and receive categories.
>> BPFbox operation example:
>> 	- connect
>> 	- bind
>> 	- accept
>> 	- listen
>> 	- send
>>    and etc.
>>
>> Landlock network enhancement should follow similar logic like in
>> mentioned sandboxes!
> 
> I think this list is inspired from SELinux:
> https://selinuxproject.org/page/ObjectClassesPerms#common_socket
> Other LSMs (e.g. Smack as mention by Casey, but also AppArmor and
> Tomoyo) may be a good source of inspiration too.
> 
> I think the most relevant access-rights for Landlock are those used by
> Capsicum: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=rights&sektion=4
> 
> One thing to keep in mind is test coverage. At the end, all access rights must be tested and with a good kernel coverage, see tools/testing/selftests/landlock . This means that the more access rights are handled, the more work/time to write tests, and the more work/time for review. Depending on how straightforward it is to handle these access rights and test them, you may want to start with a subset of them.
> 
> It may make sense to support all of these access rights but for only one network domain. At the same time, we should get confident that these access rights can be implemented, for the Landlock use case, in a consistent way whatever the network domain is.
> 
>>
>> Implementation related issues
>> =============================
>>
>> 1. Its needed to add a new type of rules:
>>
>> enum landlock_rule_type {
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
> 
> A rule type identifies the type of the kernel object (here socket or a
> set of addresses) and also the way to describe it (e.g. subnet, path for
> a UNIX socket…) along with associated access rights. In a nutshell, it
> is an unique identifier for a landlock_*_attr struct type.
> 
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
> 
> This must not be in the public UAPI. See security/landlock/limits.h
> 
>> }
>>
>> struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
>> 	_u64 handled_access_fs;
>> 	_u64 handled_actions_net;
> 
> Correct, but it makes sense to name it handled_access_net instead (as in
> your current code).
> 
>> }
>>
>> struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
> 
> "beneath" is not appropriate here. E.g. using landlock_net_cidr4_attr
> looks good to identify IPv4 subnets.
> 
>> 	/**
>> 	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions
>> 	 * for a current process
>> 	 */
>> 	__u64 allowed_actions;
> 
> You need a way to describe a network object (e.g. a subnet) and also the
> communication semantic (e.g. TCP, UPD…). We should take inspiration from
> names used in the socket(2) man page.
> 
>> }
>>
>>
>> 2. Added 2 defines for network allowed actions.
>> Now the current prototype patch support creating 2 types
>> of sockets - unix and inet:
>> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
> 
> It should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_{BIND,CREATE} or something similar. The
> name UNIX and INET should not appear here but only in the
> landlock_net_cidr4_attr.
> 
>> 	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
>>
>> Its needed to discuss what kind of sockets types and actions
>> should be supported in MINIMAL version!!!
> 
> I think IPv4 UDP/TCP sockets are the best way to go, to not rely on
> process identification and to be sure that access rights are consistent
> with different protocols.
> 
> You can start with access rights that are easy to implement, and split
> patches at least per use of hook or something that makes sense from an
> implementation point of view. Keep in mind that all access rights must
> be tested, so it may be wise to start with a few. Tests must be
> submitted within the same patch series in dedicated patches. See the
> tools/testing/selftest/landlock files. Good tests should take more time
> to write than kernel code.
> 
>>
>>
>> 3. Syscalls interfaces.
>> Current syscall interface look like enough for support different
>> rule types, but it’s needed to modify some internal functions
>> to support it.
>>
>> As an example:
>> struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
>> 						 const u32 net_access_mask)
>> {
>> 	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>>
>> 	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
>> 	if (!access_mask && !net_access_mask )
>> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
>> 	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
>> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && access_mask)
>> 		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = access_mask;
>> 	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
> 
> You can wrap the two mask tests with only one if(!IS_ERR(new_ruleset)).
> 
>> 		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
> 
> We need to be careful about type confusion and a two-dimensional array
> is not a good fit for a ruleset.
> 
>>
>> 	return new_ruleset;
>> }
>>
>> In future, it's to use an array access_mask[LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1]
>> enum landlock_rule_type {
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
>>
>> 	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
>> };
>>
>>
>> 4. Kernel objects.
>> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock rules.
>> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
>> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
>> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
>> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
>> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
>> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
> 
> For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We can't
> safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the file
> system changes, and then the rules must change with it.
> 
> To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can rely
> on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP
> address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or receveing an
> UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come from
> a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the existing
> file system identification mechanism and probably extend the current FS
> access rights.
> 
>>
>> int sock_create_lite(int family, int type, int protocol,
>> 		     struct socket **res)
>> {
>> 	int err;
>> 	struct socket *sock = NULL;
>>
>> 	err = security_socket_create(family, type, protocol, 1);
>> 	if (err)
>> 		goto out;
>> 	...
>>
>> 	sock = sock_alloc();
>> 	if (!sock) {
>> 		err = -ENOMEM;
>> 		goto out;
>> 	}
>> 	...
>> }
>> And all other socket rules can be tied to a process object, cause
>> it would be easier to maintaint and control it.
> 
> A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet
> rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on subnets/protocols.
> 
>> For containerized application a user could create a bunch container with
>> individual network restriction rules tied to them.
>>
>> This solution (what kernel object to use) must be established first,
>> cause the following design depends on it.
>>
>>
>> 5. Landlock internal structures modifications.
>>
>>    - In further patches its needed network_rules structure in landlock_layer
>> structure to support network rules:
>>
>> 	struct landlock_layer {
>> 		/**
>> 		* @level: Position of this layer in the layer stack.
>> 		*/
>> 		u16 level;
>> 		/**
>> 		* @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
>> 		* relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
>> 		*/
>> 		u16 access;
>>
>> 		struct network_rules;
> 
> The current landlock_layer is designed to handle different types of
> actions relative to the object type. This struct doesn't need to be
> modified.
> 
>> 	};
>>
>> The architecture of struct network_rules has not been established yet,
>> and it could be like this :
>>
>> 	struct network_rules {
>> 		Socket_domains = {AF_UNIX, AF_INET
>> 		Socket_types = {SOCK_STREAM, ...
>> 		Socket_protocols = {IP, TCP, ...
>> 		Socket_actions = {"connect", "bind"
>> 		IP_address_allowed[]
>> 	}
> 
> To sum up, for IPv4 restrictions, we need a new rule type identified
> with LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_CIDR4. This will handle a new
> struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr {
>       __u64 allowed_access;
>       __u32 address; // IPv4
>       __u8 prefix; // From 0 to 32
>       __u8 type; // SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM
>       __u16 port;
> } __attribute__((packed));
> // https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4632
> 
> This data structure (*_attr) identifies actions (allowed accesses) on
> objects (subnet and protocol).
> 
> For UNIX abstract sockets, we might have LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_UNIX_ABSTRACT
> handling something similar to
> struct landlock_net_unix_abstract_attr {
>       __u64 allowed_access;
>       char *abstract_path;
> };
> 
> It may not make sense to have Landlock rules for unnamed UNIX sockets
> (socket pairs) for now. Indeed, it would require to identify local peers.
> 
>>
>>    - Using pointer to FAM arrays of different types of access masks: fs,
>> network, ipc etc.
>>
>> 	struct landlock_ruleset {
>>
>> 		struct rb_root root;
>> 		...
>> 		...
>>
>> 		u16 *access_masks[];
> 
> u16 access_masks[] should be just fine.
> 
>> 	};
>>
>>
>> This is just the basic ideas for the open discussion.
>> Please give your opinion and suggestion.
> 
> It would be easier to review if you (mainly) describe code as comments
> in the patches (or commit messages), but please don't duplicate it in
> the cover letter. Most of my above comments could be duplicated in the
> patch comments below.
> 
>>
>> Konstantin Meskhidze (2):
>>     landlock: base template for network hooks
>>     landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
>>
>>    include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++
>>    security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>>    security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>>    security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>>    security/landlock/net.c       | 209 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>    security/landlock/net.h       |  50 ++++++++
>>    security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++--
>>    security/landlock/ruleset.h   |  11 +-
>>    security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>>    security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++-------
>>    10 files changed, 479 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>    create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>>    create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
> 
> It seems that you manually cancatenated your three patches. The git
> format-patch and send-email commands enable to create proper patch
> series (i.e. one email per patch + cover letter) which is the way to
> submit kernel patches and eases review. See
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html
> and https://kernelnewbies.org/FirstKernelPatch
> 
> More generally, please take a look at
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/development-process.html
> and especially the fifth part.
> The latest Landlock patch series can give you an idea of the expected
> format: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210422154123.13086-1-mic@digikod.net/
> 
>>
>> >From 8f1dff03a9722601334a31ee3c6680240a0e6e1c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:18:23 +0800
>> Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] landlock: base template for network hooks
>>
>> Add a new rule type LANDLOCK_RULE_NET to
>> landlock_rule_type.
>> Add landlock_net_beneath_attr to support network
>> allowed actions.
>> Add two network flags for socket creation confinement:
>> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK,
>> LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK.
>> Update Landlock syscalls to support network rules
>> injections.
>> Update landlock_ruleset structure to support network access mask.
>> Add net.c and net.h files with network template functions.
>> Add new blob size with lbs_task and landlock_add_net_hooks
>> into landlock_init().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>    include/uapi/linux/landlock.h |  69 +++++++++++++++++
>>    security/landlock/Makefile    |   2 +-
>>    security/landlock/fs.c        |   4 +-
>>    security/landlock/limits.h    |   3 +
>>    security/landlock/net.c       |  88 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>    security/landlock/net.h       |  51 +++++++++++++
>>    security/landlock/ruleset.c   |  46 ++++++++---
>>    security/landlock/ruleset.h   |   9 ++-
>>    security/landlock/setup.c     |   3 +
>>    security/landlock/syscalls.c  | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>    10 files changed, 358 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
>>    create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.c
>>    create mode 100644 security/landlock/net.h
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
>> index b3d952067f59..7d980b55d345 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
>> @@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
>>    	 * compatibility reasons.
>>    	 */
>>    	__u64 handled_access_fs;
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * @handled_actions_net: Bitmask of actions (cf. `Network flags`_)
> 
> @handled_access_net
> 
>> +	 * that is handled by this ruleset and should then be forbidden if no
>> +	 * rule explicitly allow them.  This is needed for backward
>> +	 * compatibility reasons.
>> +	 */
>> +	__u64 handled_access_net;
>>    };
>>
>>    /*
>> @@ -46,6 +54,18 @@ enum landlock_rule_type {
>>    	 * landlock_path_beneath_attr .
>>    	 */
>>    	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_NET: Type of a &struct
>> +	 * landlock_net_beneath_attr .
>> +	 */
>> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
> 
> Not an appropriate name (see comment above).
> 
>> +
>> +	/**
>> +	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM: Number of
>> +	 * Landlock	rules type: fs, network, ipc ect.
>> +	 */
>> +	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
> 
> Must not be in the UAPI (see comment above).
> 
>>    };
>>
>>    /**
>> @@ -70,6 +90,22 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>>    	 */
>>    } __attribute__((packed));
>>
>> +/**
>> + * struct landlock_path_beneath_attr - Network actions definition
>> + *
>> + * Argument of sys_landlock_add_rule().
>> + */
>> +struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
> 
> Should be struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr or similar.
> 
>> +	/**
>> +	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions for a current process
>> +	 */
>> +	__u64 allowed_actions;
> 
> See suggested fields for landlock_net_cidr4_attr above.
> 
>> +	/*
>> +	 * This struct is packed to avoid trailing reserved members.
>> +	 * Cf. security/landlock/syscalls.c:build_check_abi()
>> +	 */
>> +} __attribute__((packed));
> 
> No need for the packed attribute here.
> 
>> +
>>    /**
>>     * DOC: fs_access
>>     *
>> @@ -134,4 +170,37 @@ struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
>>    #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK			(1ULL << 11)
>>    #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM			(1ULL << 12)
>>
>> +/**
>> + * DOC: net_actions
>> + *
>> + * A set of actions on kernel objects may be defined by an attribute (e.g.
>> + * &struct landlock_net_beneath_attr) including a bitmask of access.
>> + *
>> + * Network flags
>> + * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> + *
>> + * These flags enable to restrict a sandboxed process to a set of actions on
>> + * network actions.
> 
> Need some update.
> 
>> + *
>> + * A process can only create these type sockets with allowed actions:
>> + *
>> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE...: Create a unix/inet socket.
>> + *
>> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a UNIX domain
>> + *   socket.
>> + * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_INET_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a IPv4 Internet
>> + *   protocols domain socket.
>> + *
>> + * .. warning::
>> + *
>> + *   It is currently not possible to restrict some network-related actions
>> + *   accessible through these syscall families:   accept(2), bind(2),
>> + *   close(2), connect(2), fcntl(2),getpeername(2), getsockname(2),
>> + *   getsockopt(2), listen(2), read(2), recv(2), select(2), send(2),
>> + *   shutdown(2), socketpair(2),
>> + *   Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them.
> 
> Please don't copy unrelated documentation.
> 
>> + */
>> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
>> +#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
> 
> These accesses are not appropriate (see comment above).
> 
>> +
>>    #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_LANDLOCK_H */
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/Makefile b/security/landlock/Makefile
>> index 7bbd2f413b3e..afa44baaa83a 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/Makefile
>> +++ b/security/landlock/Makefile
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>    obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) := landlock.o
>>
>>    landlock-y := setup.o syscalls.o object.o ruleset.o \
>> -	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o
>> +	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o net.o
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
>> index 97b8e421f617..bb5967fc5dd4 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/fs.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
>> @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ int landlock_append_fs_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>>    	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
>> -	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->fs_access_masks[0];
>> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->access_masks[0][0];
> 
> We should rename fs_access_masks to access_masks but keep it as a
> one-dimensional array and identify the type of the access (file system
> or network) with e.g. with the 16th (upper) bit which would be checked
> every time accesses are used thanks to a dedicated helper, and…
> 
>>    	object = get_inode_object(d_backing_inode(path->dentry));
>>    	if (IS_ERR(object))
>>    		return PTR_ERR(object);
>> @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
>>    	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested accesses. */
>>    	layer_mask = 0;
>>    	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
> 
> …it would then require to exclude network access layers here.
> 
>> -		if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & access_request)
>> +		if (domain->access_masks[0][i] & access_request)
>>    			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
>>    	}
>>    	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/limits.h b/security/landlock/limits.h
>> index 2a0a1095ee27..56f883530545 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/limits.h
>> +++ b/security/landlock/limits.h
>> @@ -18,4 +18,7 @@
>>    #define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS		LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM
>>    #define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS		((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS << 1) - 1)
>>
>> +#define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK
> 
> No FS here. I guess you'll like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE.
> 
> Accesses/suffixes should be:
> - CREATE
> - ACCEPT
> - BIND
> - LISTEN
> - CONNECT
> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
> - SEND
> - SHUTDOWN
> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
> 
>> +#define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET	((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET << 1) - 1)
>> +
>>    #endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LIMITS_H */
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..49af2c821f79
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * Landlock LSM - Filesystem management and hooks
>> + *
>> + * Copyright © 2016-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
>> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/atomic.h>
>> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
>> +#include <linux/bits.h>
>> +#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
>> +#include <linux/dcache.h>
>> +#include <linux/err.h>
>> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/limits.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
>> +#include <linux/mount.h>
>> +#include <linux/namei.h>
>> +#include <linux/path.h>
>> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/stat.h>
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> +#include <linux/wait_bit.h>
>> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
>> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/thread_info.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>> +
>> +
>> +#include "common.h"
>> +#include "cred.h"
>> +#include "fs.h"
>> +#include "limits.h"
>> +#include "object.h"
>> +#include "ruleset.h"
>> +#include "setup.h"
>> +#include "net.h"
> 
> Please review all the included files and remove those that are not
> needed, and keep the explicit list of directly required ones (i.e. *not*
> removing those that are indirectly included).
> 
>> +
>> +/* Underlying object management */
>> +
>> +static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
>> +{
>> +	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
>> +
>> +	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
> 
> Please use full sentences with third person.
> 
>> +	object->underobj = NULL;
>> +
>> +	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
>> +	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
> 
> We need a full explanation of how this should work (object owners,
> locking, RCU window… or why such mechanism is not required) to protect
> against concurrent accesses and race conditions.
> 
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
>> +	.release = release_task_object
> 
> Do we need this?
> 
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct task_struct;
>> +
>> +static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
>> +{
>> +	return current;
> 
> Why such helper?
> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>> +						     u32 access_hierarchy)
>> +{
>> +	return 0; > +}
>> +
>> +static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
>> +{
>> +	return 0;
> 
> This hook doesn't seem to be needed in this patch, they add boilerplate
> for no value. Try to only add the minimal required code for each patch.
> 
>> +}
>> +
>> +static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>> +	LSM_HOOK_INIT(socket_create, hook_socket_create),
>> +};
>> +
>> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void)
>> +{
>> +	security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks),
>> +			LANDLOCK_NAME);
>> +}
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..094ac150ac3c
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>> +/*
>> + * Landlock LSM - Network management and hooks
>> + *
>> + * Copyright © 2017-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
>> + * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
>> +#define _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
>> +
>> +#include <linux/fs.h>
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <asm/current.h>
>> +#include <linux/cred.h>
>> +#include <linux/errno.h>
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
>> +#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>> +
>> +#include "common.h"
>> +#include "ruleset.h"
>> +#include "setup.h"
> 
> Please clean up the included files.
> 
>> +
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
>> + *
>> + * Enable to reference a &struct landlock_object tied to a task (i.e.
>> + * underlying object).
>> + */
>> +struct landlock_task_security {
>> +	/**
>> +	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
>> +	 */
>> +	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
>> +};
>> +
>> +static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
>> +		const struct task_struct *const task)
>> +{
>> +	return task->security + landlock_blob_sizes.lbs_task;
>> +}
>> +
>> +__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void);
>> +
>> +int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>> +						     u32 access_hierarchy);
>> +
>> +#endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H */
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>> index ec72b9262bf3..cec0fd1f83df 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>>    #include <linux/slab.h>
>>    #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>    #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>> +#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>    #include "limits.h"
>>    #include "object.h"
>> @@ -27,9 +28,23 @@
>>    static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>>    {
>>    	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>> +	u16 row, col, rules_types_num;
>> +
>> +	new_ruleset = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ruleset) +
>> +			      sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks),
>> +			      GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> 
> Why do you replace kzalloc with kmalloc?
> 
>> +
>> +	rules_types_num = LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1;
>> +	for (row = 0; row < rules_types_num; row++) {
>> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[row] = kmalloc(sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks[row]),
>> +							 GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
>> +		for (col = 0; col < num_layers; col++) {
>> +			static int count = 1;
>> +
>> +			new_ruleset->access_masks[row][col] = count++;
>> +		}
>> +	}
> 
> This extra complexity is not needed.
> 
>>
>> -	new_ruleset = kzalloc(struct_size(new_ruleset, fs_access_masks,
>> -				num_layers), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> 
> This call is just fine if you rename fs_access_masks as I commented above.
> 
>>    	if (!new_ruleset)
>>    		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>    	refcount_set(&new_ruleset->usage, 1);
>> @@ -39,21 +54,25 @@ static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
>>    	/*
>>    	 * hierarchy = NULL
>>    	 * num_rules = 0
>> -	 * fs_access_masks[] = 0
>> +	 * access_masks[] = 0
>>    	 */
>>    	return new_ruleset;
>>    }
>>
>> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask)
>> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
>> +						 const u32 net_access_mask)
>>    {
>>    	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
>>
>>    	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
>> -	if (!fs_access_mask)
>> +	if (!fs_access_mask && !net_access_mask)
> 
> This check is not correct.
> 
>>    		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
>>    	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
>> -	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
>> -		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] = fs_access_mask;
>> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && fs_access_mask)
>> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = fs_access_mask;
> 
> This needs to be updated and simplified.
> 
>> +	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
>> +		new_ruleset->access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
>> +
>>    	return new_ruleset;
>>    }
>>
>> @@ -116,11 +135,13 @@ static void build_check_ruleset(void)
>>    		.num_rules = ~0,
>>    		.num_layers = ~0,
>>    	};
>> -	typeof(ruleset.fs_access_masks[0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
>> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[0][0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
>> +	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[1][0]) net_access_mask = ~0;
>>
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_rules < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_RULES);
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_layers < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(fs_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS);
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(net_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET);
> 
> Good to update the build checks.
> 
>>    }
>>
>>    /**
>> @@ -279,7 +300,10 @@ static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
>>    		err = -EINVAL;
>>    		goto out_unlock;
>>    	}
>> -	dst->fs_access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->fs_access_masks[0];
>> +	/* Copy fs access masks. */
>> +	dst->access_masks[0][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0][0];
>> +	/* Copy network access masks. */
>> +	dst->access_masks[1][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[1][0];
> 
> This will be simplified.
> 
>>
>>    	/* Merges the @src tree. */
>>    	rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
>> @@ -337,8 +361,8 @@ static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
>>    		goto out_unlock;
>>    	}
>>    	/* Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space for the new layer. */
>> -	memcpy(child->fs_access_masks, parent->fs_access_masks,
>> -			flex_array_size(parent, fs_access_masks, parent->num_layers));
>> +	memcpy(child->access_masks, parent->access_masks,
>> +			flex_array_size(parent, access_masks, parent->num_layers));
>>
>>    	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy)) {
>>    		err = -EINVAL;
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> index 2d3ed7ec5a0a..8f4285fab372 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>>    		 * section.  This is only used by
>>    		 * landlock_put_ruleset_deferred() when @usage reaches zero.
>>    		 * The fields @lock, @usage, @num_rules, @num_layers and
>> -		 * @fs_access_masks are then unused.
>> +		 * @access_masks are then unused.
>>    		 */
>>    		struct work_struct work_free;
>>    		struct {
>> @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>>    			 */
>>    			u32 num_layers;
>>    			/**
>> -			 * @fs_access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
>> +			 * @access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
> 
> Need to update the documentation, including how to differentiate access
> types. It would probably require to tweak num_layers or add a new field.
> 
>>    			 * actions that are restricted by a ruleset.  A domain
>>    			 * saves all layers of merged rulesets in a stack
>>    			 * (FAM), starting from the first layer to the last
>> @@ -135,12 +135,13 @@ struct landlock_ruleset {
>>    			 * layers are set once and never changed for the
>>    			 * lifetime of the ruleset.
>>    			 */
>> -			u16 fs_access_masks[];
>> +			u16 *access_masks[];
> 
> u16 access_masks[];
> 
>>    		};
>>    	};
>>    };
>>
>> -struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask);
>> +struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
>> +						 const u32 net_access_mask);
>>
>>    void landlock_put_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
>>    void landlock_put_ruleset_deferred(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c
>> index f8e8e980454c..91ab06ec8ce0 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/setup.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/setup.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>    #include "fs.h"
>>    #include "ptrace.h"
>>    #include "setup.h"
>> +#include "net.h"
>>
>>    bool landlock_initialized __lsm_ro_after_init = false;
>>
>> @@ -21,6 +22,7 @@ struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>>    	.lbs_cred = sizeof(struct landlock_cred_security),
>>    	.lbs_inode = sizeof(struct landlock_inode_security),
>>    	.lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security),
>> +	.lbs_task = sizeof(struct landlock_task_security),
>>    };
>>
>>    static int __init landlock_init(void)
>> @@ -28,6 +30,7 @@ static int __init landlock_init(void)
>>    	landlock_add_cred_hooks();
>>    	landlock_add_ptrace_hooks();
>>    	landlock_add_fs_hooks();
>> +	landlock_add_net_hooks();
>>    	landlock_initialized = true;
>>    	pr_info("Up and running.\n");
>>    	return 0;
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> index 32396962f04d..72cb1b0cb8a9 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
>>    #include "limits.h"
>>    #include "ruleset.h"
>>    #include "setup.h"
>> +#include "net.h"
>>
>>    /**
>>     * copy_min_struct_from_user - Safe future-proof argument copying
>> @@ -73,7 +74,8 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>>    {
>>    	struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr;
>>    	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
>> -	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size;
>> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr net_beneath_attr;
> 
> No need for a "beneath" here.
> 
>> +	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size, net_beneath_size;
> 
> Please don't change the declaration order.
> 
>>
>>    	/*
>>    	 * For each user space ABI structures, first checks that there is no
>> @@ -81,13 +83,18 @@ static void build_check_abi(void)
>>    	 * struct size.
>>    	 */
>>    	ruleset_size = sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
>> +	ruleset_size += sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != ruleset_size);
>> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 8);
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 16);
>>
>>    	path_beneath_size = sizeof(path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>>    	path_beneath_size += sizeof(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd);
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != path_beneath_size);
>>    	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != 12);
>> +
>> +	net_beneath_size = sizeof(net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != net_beneath_size);
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != 8);
>>    }
>>
>>    /* Ruleset handling */
>> @@ -174,20 +181,33 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>    	}
>>
>> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer. */
>> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for fs. */
>>    	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
>>    			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_fs),
>>    			attr, size);
>>    	if (err)
>>    		return err;
>>
>> +	/* Copies raw user space buffer for network. */
>> +	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
>> +			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_net),
> 
> Why two calls to copy_min_struct_from_user()? The first one is now useless.
> 
>> +			attr, size);
>> +	if (err)
>> +		return err;
>> +
>>    	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>>    	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
>>    			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> +	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
>> +	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_net | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET) !=
>> +			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>    	/* Checks arguments and transforms to kernel struct. */
>> -	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
>> +	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs,
>> +					  ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
>>    	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>>    		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>>
>> @@ -306,6 +326,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>>    		const void __user *const, rule_attr, const __u32, flags)
>>    {
>>    	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
>> +	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr  net_beneath_attr;
>>    	struct path path;
>>    	struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
>>    	int res, err;
>> @@ -317,47 +338,88 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>>    	if (flags)
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> -	if (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH)
>> +	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
>> +	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>> -	/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
>> -	res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
>> -			sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
>> -	if (res)
>> -		return -EFAULT;
>> -
>> -	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
>> -	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>> -	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>> -		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>> -
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
>> -	 * are ignored in path walks.
>> -	 */
>> -	if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
>> -		err = -ENOMSG;
>> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
> 
> Please use a switch statement and set temporary pointers in this
> statement to not duplicate the below code.
> 
>> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
>> +		res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
>> +				sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
>> +		if (res)
>> +			return -EFAULT;
>>    	}
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
>> -	 * (ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
>> -	 */
>> -	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) !=
>> -			ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) {
>> -		err = -EINVAL;
>> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +
>> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
>> +		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
>> +		res = copy_from_user(&net_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
>> +				sizeof(net_beneath_attr));
>> +		if (res)
>> +			return -EFAULT;
>>    	}
>>
>> -	/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
>> -	err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
>> -	if (err)
>> -		goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
>> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
>> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
>> +		 * are ignored in path walks.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
>> +			err = -ENOMSG;
>> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +		}
> 
> Most of the code can be shared, no need to duplicate.
> 
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
>> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[0][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
>> +		 */
>> +		if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) !=
>> +				ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) {
>> +			err = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
>> +		err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
>> +		if (err)
>> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +
>> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
>> +		err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
>> +				path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>> +		path_put(&path);
>> +	}
>>
>> -	/* Imports the new rule. */
>> -	err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
>> -			path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
>> -	path_put(&path);
>> +	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
>> +		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
>> +		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
>> +		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
>> +			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
>> +		 * are ignored in network actions
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions) {
>> +			err = -ENOMSG;
>> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +		}
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
>> +		 * (ruleset->access_masks[1][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
>> +		 */
>> +		if ((net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions | ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) !=
>> +				ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) {
>> +			err = -EINVAL;
>> +			goto out_put_ruleset;
>> +		}
>> +
>> +		/* Imports the new rule. */
>> +		err = landlock_append_net_rule(ruleset, net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
>> +	}
>>
>>    out_put_ruleset:
>>    	landlock_put_ruleset(ruleset);
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
>>
>> >From 5216f8c21805879cd41d57f858817417669a7f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:04:11 +0800
>> Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] landlock: socket_create() hook implemented
>>
>> Implement socket_create() hook.
>> Current prototype can restrict creating two
>> types of sockets: INET and UNIX. Its just basic idea
>> how Landlock could support network confinement.
> 
> All commit messages should contain a set of selfsufficient paragraphs
> with useful full sentences describing at least the context (with
> potential background), the purpose of the patch, and how it is acheived.
> Implementation details can be explain as comments in the patch.
> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>    security/landlock/net.c      | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>    security/landlock/net.h      |   5 +-
>>    security/landlock/ruleset.h  |   2 +-
>>    security/landlock/syscalls.c |   2 +-
>>    4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
>> index 49af2c821f79..3c6b3a6da322 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/net.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/net.c
>> @@ -42,17 +42,10 @@
>>    #include "net.h"
>>
>>    /* Underlying object management */
>> -
>>    static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
>>    {
>> -	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
>> -
>>    	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
>>    	object->underobj = NULL;
>> -
>> -	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
>> -	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
> 
> What is happening here?
> 
>> -
>>    }
>>
>>    static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
>> @@ -66,15 +59,143 @@ static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
>>    	return current;
>>    }
>>
>> +static struct landlock_object *get_task_object(struct task_struct *const task)
>> +{
>> +	struct landlock_object *object, *new_object;
>> +	struct landlock_task_security *task_sec = landlock_task(task);
>> +
>> +	object = task_sec->object;
>> +	if (object)
>> +		if (likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage)))
>> +			return object;
> 
> There is a race condition here.
> 
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If there is no object tied to task, then create a new one.
>> +	 */
>> +	new_object = landlock_create_object(&landlock_net_underops, task);
>> +	if (IS_ERR(new_object))
>> +		return new_object;
>> +
>> +	task_sec->object = new_object;
>> +	return new_object;
>> +}
>> +
>> +
>>    int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
>> -						     u32 access_hierarchy)
>> +						     u32 access_rights)
> 
> Please update previous patches accordingly.
> 
>>    {
>> -	return 0;
>> +	int err;
>> +	struct landlock_object *object;
>> +
>> +	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
>> +	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET & ~ruleset->access_masks[1][0];
>> +
>> +	object = get_task_object(get_current_task());
> 
> This patch series tries to restrict socket creation in a sandbox except
> for the processes that create a rule that excludes themselves. This
> doesn't fit with the Landlock model. This information is key to
> understand this patch series (what it does and how) and it is missing
> from the introduction (cover letter and this patch description).
> 
> What network control access rules would be useful to is to block network
> access to all processes in a sandbox, except when receiving or sending
> packets to or from a set of specific subnets (e.g. IPs) with a set of
> specific protocols (e.g. TCP, UDP) and ports (e.g. 80, 443). In this
> case, objects could be identified with IPs, protocols and ports.
> 
>> +	if (IS_ERR(object))
>> +		return PTR_ERR(object);
>> +	mutex_lock(&ruleset->lock);
>> +	err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, access_rights << 16);
> 
> Why this shift? If this is legitimate, all such shift should be
> self-documented with an (inlined) function helper.
> 
>> +	mutex_unlock(&ruleset->lock);
>> +	/*
>> +	 * No need to check for an error because landlock_insert_rule()
>> +	 * increments the refcount for the new object if needed.
>> +	 */
>> +	landlock_put_object(object);
>> +	return err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Access-control management */
>> +static inline bool unmask_layers(
>> +		const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
>> +		const u32 access_request, u64 layer_mask)
>> +{
>> +	const struct landlock_rule *rule;
>> +	const struct task_struct *task;
>> +	size_t i;
>> +	bool allowed = false;
>> +
>> +	task = get_current_task();
>> +
> 
> Please take a look at the RCU documentation. The sparse tool and
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_* options can help.
> 
>> +	rule = landlock_find_rule(domain, landlock_task(task)->object);
>> +
>> +	/* Grant access if there is no rule for an oject */
> 
> typos
> 
>> +	if (!rule)
>> +		return allowed = true;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * An access is granted if, for each policy layer, at least one rule
>> +	 * encountered on network actions requested,
>> +	 * regardless of their position in the layer stack.  We must then check
>> +	 * the remaining layers, from the first added layer to
>> +	 * the last one.
>> +	 */
> 
> There is a lot of duplicated code. This should not be the case.
> 
>> +	for (i = 0; i < rule->num_layers; i++) {
>> +		const struct landlock_layer *const layer = &rule->layers[i];
>> +		const u64 layer_level = BIT_ULL(layer->level - 1);
>> +
>> +		/* Checks that the layer grants access to the request. */
>> +		if ((layer->access & (access_request << 16)) == (access_request << 16)) {
>> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
>> +			allowed = true;
>> +
>> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
>> +				return allowed;
>> +		} else {
>> +			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
>> +
>> +			if (layer_mask == 0)
>> +				return allowed;
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +	return allowed;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int check_socket_access(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
>> +							 int family)
>> +{
>> +	bool allowed = false;
>> +	u64 layer_mask;
>> +	size_t i;
>> +
>> +	/* Make sure all layers can be checked. */
>> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask) < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
>> +
>> +	if (!family)
>> +		return 0;
>> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain))
>> +		return 0;
>> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->num_layers < 1))
>> +		return -EACCES;
>> +
>> +	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested
>> +	 * socket family.
>> +	 */
>> +	layer_mask = 0;
>> +	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
>> +		if (domain->access_masks[1][i] & family)
>> +			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
>> +	}
>> +	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
>> +	if (layer_mask == 0)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We need to walk through all the hierarchy to not miss any relevant
>> +	 * restriction.
>> +	 */
> 
> Please don't blindly copy-paste code, check that it still makes sense,
> and update all related comments.
> 
>> +	allowed = unmask_layers(domain, family, layer_mask);
> 
> Not a good idea to directly use "family" as an access request. You
> defined one but don't use it here. Are you sure it works as expected?
> 
>> +
>> +	return allowed ? 0 : -EACCES;
>>    }
>>
>>    static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
>>    {
>> -	return 0;
>> +	const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom = landlock_get_current_domain();
>> +
>> +	if (!dom)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	return check_socket_access(dom, family);
>>    }
>>
>>    static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
>> index 094ac150ac3c..2036272ff106 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/net.h
>> +++ b/security/landlock/net.h
>> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>>    #include "ruleset.h"
>>    #include "setup.h"
>>
>> -
> 
> Don't introduce fixes for previous patches but rebase them.
> 
>>    /**
>>     * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
>>     *
>> @@ -32,9 +31,9 @@
>>     */
>>    struct landlock_task_security {
>>    	/**
>> -	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
>> +	 * @object: Pointer to an allocated object.
>>    	 */
>> -	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
>> +	struct landlock_object *object;
> 
> Same here.
> 
>>    };
>>
>>    static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> index 8f4285fab372..cec3fc489531 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> +++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct landlock_layer {
>>    	 * @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
>>    	 * relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
>>    	 */
>> -	u16 access;
>> +	u32 access;
> 
> There is no need to change this size. As explained in the comment, this
> struct is dedicated per object, and then per type.
> 
>>    };
>>
>>    /**
>> diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> index 72cb1b0cb8a9..27653e7bf201 100644
>> --- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> +++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
>> @@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>>    	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
>> -	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
>> +		(rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
> 
> Please squash such fixes in the corresponding previous patch.
> 
>>    		return -EINVAL;
>>
>>    	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
> 
> Thanks for this initial RFC Konstantin, this review should help you
> build the next one.
> 
> Regards,
>    Mickaël
>
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 17, 2021, 9:39 a.m. UTC | #5
New discussions and RFCs should also include netdev and netfilter 
mailing lists. For people new to Landlock, the goal is to enable 
unprivileged processes (and then potentially malicious ones) to limit 
their own network access (i.e. create a security sandbox for themselves).

Thinking more about network access control for Landlock use case, here 
are better suggestions:

On 14/12/2021 12:51, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 14/12/2021 04:49, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>> Hi Mickaёl.
>> I've been thinking about your reply:
>>
>>> 4. Kernel objects.
>>> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock 
>>> rules.
>>> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
>>> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
>>> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
>>> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
>>> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
>>> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
>>
>> - For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We can't
>> - safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the file
>> - system changes, and then the rules must change with it.
>>
>> - To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can rely
>> - on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP
>> - address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or 
>> receveing an
>> - UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come 
>> from
>> - a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the existing
>> - file system identification mechanism and probably extend the current FS
>> - access rights.
>> - A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet
>> - rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on 
>> subnets/protocols.
>>
>> In current Landlock version inodes are the objects to tie rules to.
>> For network you are saying that we can rely on stateless rule 
>> definitions and
>> rules should be tied to subnets/protocols, not to processes' 
>> task_struct objects.
>> Cause Landlock architecture requires all rules to be tied to a different
>> kernel objects, and when LSM hooks are caught there must be search
>> procedure completed in a ruleset's red-black tree structure:
>>     kernel_object -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule 
>> <-----landlock_ruleset
>>
>> What kind of kernel objects do you mean by subnets/protocols?
>> Do you suggest using sockets' inodes in this case or using network rules
>> without to be tied to any kernel object?
> 
> The subnets/protocols is the definition provided when creating a rule 
> (i.e. the object from the user point of view), but the kernel may relies 
> on other internal representations. I guess datagram packets would need 
> to be matched against IP/port everytime they are received by a sandboxed 
> process, but tagging sockets or their underlying inodes for stream 
> connections make sense.
> 
> I don't have experience in the network LSM hooks though, any input is 
> welcome.
> 
>>     socket_inode -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule 
>> <-----landlock_ruleset
>>              OR
>>     landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 4:30 PM
>> To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; yusongping 
>> <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation
>>
>> Hi Konstantin,
>>
>> On 10/12/2021 08:21, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:

[...]

>>
>> To sum up, for IPv4 restrictions, we need a new rule type identified
>> with LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_CIDR4. This will handle a new
>> struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr {
>>       __u64 allowed_access;
>>       __u32 address; // IPv4
>>       __u8 prefix; // From 0 to 32
>>       __u8 type; // SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM
>>       __u16 port;
>> } __attribute__((packed));
>> // https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4632

IP addresses (and subnets) should not be part of a rule, at least for 
now. Indeed, IP addresses are tied either to the system architecture 
(e.g. container configuration), the local network or Internet, hence 
moving targets not controlled by application developers. Moreover, from 
a kernel point of view, it is more complex to check and handle subnets, 
which are most of the time tied to the Netfilter infrastructure, not 
suitable for Landlock because of its unprivileged nature.

On the other side, protocols such as TCP and their associated ports are 
normalized and are tied to an application semantic (e.g. TCP/443 for HTTPS).

There is other advantages to exclude subnets from this type of rules for 
now (e.g. they could be composed with protocols/ports), but that may 
come later.

I then think that a first MVP to bring network access control support to 
Landlock should focus only on TCP and related ports (i.e. services). I 
propose to not use my previous definition of landlock_net_cidr4_attr but 
to have a landlock_net_service_attr instead:

struct landlock_net_service_attr {
     __u64 allowed_access; // LANDLOCK_NET_*_TCP
     __u16 port;
} __attribute__((packed));

This attribute should handle IPv4 and IPv6 indistinguishably.

[...]

>>
>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>> - CREATE
>> - ACCEPT
>> - BIND
>> - LISTEN
>> - CONNECT
>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>> - SEND
>> - SHUTDOWN
>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)

For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP 
and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct 
sockaddr).

These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the network 
access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram 
(e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more 
complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch 
series, once TCP is supported.
Willem de Bruijn Dec. 17, 2021, 9:29 p.m. UTC | #6
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:38 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:
>
> New discussions and RFCs should also include netdev and netfilter
> mailing lists. For people new to Landlock, the goal is to enable
> unprivileged processes (and then potentially malicious ones) to limit
> their own network access (i.e. create a security sandbox for themselves).
>
> Thinking more about network access control for Landlock use case, here
> are better suggestions:
>
> On 14/12/2021 12:51, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> >
> > On 14/12/2021 04:49, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> >> Hi Mickaёl.
> >> I've been thinking about your reply:
> >>
> >>> 4. Kernel objects.
> >>> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock
> >>> rules.
> >>> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object of
> >>> a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
> >>> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have
> >>> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied
> >>> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the hook's
> >>> catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
> >>
> >> - For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We can't
> >> - safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the file
> >> - system changes, and then the rules must change with it.
> >>
> >> - To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can rely
> >> - on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP
> >> - address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or
> >> receveing an
> >> - UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come
> >> from
> >> - a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the existing
> >> - file system identification mechanism and probably extend the current FS
> >> - access rights.
> >> - A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet
> >> - rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on
> >> subnets/protocols.
> >>
> >> In current Landlock version inodes are the objects to tie rules to.
> >> For network you are saying that we can rely on stateless rule
> >> definitions and
> >> rules should be tied to subnets/protocols, not to processes'
> >> task_struct objects.
> >> Cause Landlock architecture requires all rules to be tied to a different
> >> kernel objects, and when LSM hooks are caught there must be search
> >> procedure completed in a ruleset's red-black tree structure:
> >>     kernel_object -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule
> >> <-----landlock_ruleset
> >>
> >> What kind of kernel objects do you mean by subnets/protocols?
> >> Do you suggest using sockets' inodes in this case or using network rules
> >> without to be tied to any kernel object?
> >
> > The subnets/protocols is the definition provided when creating a rule
> > (i.e. the object from the user point of view), but the kernel may relies
> > on other internal representations. I guess datagram packets would need
> > to be matched against IP/port everytime they are received by a sandboxed
> > process, but tagging sockets or their underlying inodes for stream
> > connections make sense.
> >
> > I don't have experience in the network LSM hooks though, any input is
> > welcome.
> >
> >>     socket_inode -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule
> >> <-----landlock_ruleset
> >>              OR
> >>     landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> >> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 4:30 PM
> >> To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> >> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; yusongping
> >> <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation
> >>
> >> Hi Konstantin,
> >>
> >> On 10/12/2021 08:21, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >> To sum up, for IPv4 restrictions, we need a new rule type identified
> >> with LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_CIDR4. This will handle a new
> >> struct landlock_net_cidr4_attr {
> >>       __u64 allowed_access;
> >>       __u32 address; // IPv4
> >>       __u8 prefix; // From 0 to 32
> >>       __u8 type; // SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM
> >>       __u16 port;
> >> } __attribute__((packed));
> >> // https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4632
>
> IP addresses (and subnets) should not be part of a rule, at least for
> now. Indeed, IP addresses are tied either to the system architecture
> (e.g. container configuration), the local network or Internet, hence
> moving targets not controlled by application developers. Moreover, from
> a kernel point of view, it is more complex to check and handle subnets,
> which are most of the time tied to the Netfilter infrastructure, not
> suitable for Landlock because of its unprivileged nature.
>
> On the other side, protocols such as TCP and their associated ports are
> normalized and are tied to an application semantic (e.g. TCP/443 for HTTPS).
>
> There is other advantages to exclude subnets from this type of rules for
> now (e.g. they could be composed with protocols/ports), but that may
> come later.
>
> I then think that a first MVP to bring network access control support to
> Landlock should focus only on TCP and related ports (i.e. services). I
> propose to not use my previous definition of landlock_net_cidr4_attr but
> to have a landlock_net_service_attr instead:
>
> struct landlock_net_service_attr {
>      __u64 allowed_access; // LANDLOCK_NET_*_TCP
>      __u16 port;
> } __attribute__((packed));
>
> This attribute should handle IPv4 and IPv6 indistinguishably.
>
> [...]
>
> >>
> >> Accesses/suffixes should be:
> >> - CREATE
> >> - ACCEPT
> >> - BIND
> >> - LISTEN
> >> - CONNECT
> >> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
> >> - SEND
> >> - SHUTDOWN
> >> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
> >> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
>
> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP
> and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct
> sockaddr).
>
> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the network
> access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram
> (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more
> complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch
> series, once TCP is supported.

Thanks for cc:ing the netdev list. I miss some of context, assume that
limits are configured on a socket basis.

One practical use-case I had for voluntary relinquish of privileges:
do not allow connect AF_UNSPEC. This is a little-used feature that
allows an already established connection to disconnect and create a
new connection. Without this option, it is possible for a privileged
process to create connections and hand those off to a less privileged
process. Also, do not allow listen calls, to avoid elevating a socket
to a listener.
Konstantin Meskhidze (A) Dec. 18, 2021, 8:26 a.m. UTC | #7
Hi, Mickaёl
Thanks again for your opinion about minimal Landlock IPv4 network version.
I have already started refactoring the code.
Here are some additional thoughts about the design.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> 
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 5:39 PM
To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
Cc: yusongping <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>; linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>; Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; netfilter@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation

New discussions and RFCs should also include netdev and netfilter mailing lists. For people new to Landlock, the goal is to enable unprivileged processes (and then potentially malicious ones) to limit their own network access (i.e. create a security sandbox for themselves).

Thinking more about network access control for Landlock use case, here are better suggestions:

On 14/12/2021 12:51, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
> 
> On 14/12/2021 04:49, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>> Hi Mickaёl.
>> I've been thinking about your reply:
>>
>>> 4. Kernel objects.
>>> For filesystem restrictions inodes objects are used to tie landlock 
>>> rules.
>>> But for socket operations it's preferred to use task_struct object 
>>> of a process, cause sockets' inodes are created just after
>>> security_socket_create() hook is called, and if its needed to have 
>>> some restriction rule for creating sockets, this rule can't be tied 
>>> to a socket inode cause there is no any has been created at the 
>>> hook's catching moment, see the sock_create_lite() function below:
>>
>> - For the file system, we use inodes to identify hierarchies. We 
>> can't
>> - safely rely on stateless objects (e.g. path strings) because the 
>> file
>> - system changes, and then the rules must change with it.
>>
>> - To identify network objects (from the user point of view), we can 
>> rely
>> - on stateless rule definitions because they may be absolute (i.e. IP
>> - address), e.g. sandbox process creating a new connection or 
>> receveing an
>> - UDP packet. It is not be the case with UNIX socket if they are come 
>> from
>> - a path (i.e. inode) though. In this case we'll have to use the 
>> existing
>> - file system identification mechanism and probably extend the 
>> current FS
>> - access rights.
>> - A sandbox is a set of processes handled as "subjects". Generic inet
>> - rules should not be tied to processes (for now) but on 
>> subnets/protocols.
>>
>> In current Landlock version inodes are the objects to tie rules to.
>> For network you are saying that we can rely on stateless rule 
>> definitions and rules should be tied to subnets/protocols, not to 
>> processes'
>> task_struct objects.
>> Cause Landlock architecture requires all rules to be tied to a 
>> different kernel objects, and when LSM hooks are caught there must be 
>> search procedure completed in a ruleset's red-black tree structure:
>>     kernel_object -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule 
>> <-----landlock_ruleset
>>
>> What kind of kernel objects do you mean by subnets/protocols?
>> Do you suggest using sockets' inodes in this case or using network 
>> rules without to be tied to any kernel object?
> 
> The subnets/protocols is the definition provided when creating a rule 
> (i.e. the object from the user point of view), but the kernel may 
> relies on other internal representations. I guess datagram packets 
> would need to be matched against IP/port everytime they are received 
> by a sandboxed process, but tagging sockets or their underlying inodes 
> for stream connections make sense.
> 
> I don't have experience in the network LSM hooks though, any input is 
> welcome.
> 
>>     socket_inode -> landlock_object <- landlock_rule 
>> <-----landlock_ruleset
>>              OR
>>     landlock_object <- landlock_rule <-----landlock_ruleset
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 4:30 PM
>> To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
>> Cc: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org; yusongping 
>> <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation
>>
>> Hi Konstantin,
>>
>> On 10/12/2021 08:21, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:

[...]

>>
>> To sum up, for IPv4 restrictions, we need a new rule type identified 
>> with LANDLOCK_RULE_NET_CIDR4. This will handle a new struct 
>> landlock_net_cidr4_attr {
>>       __u64 allowed_access;
>>       __u32 address; // IPv4
>>       __u8 prefix; // From 0 to 32
>>       __u8 type; // SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM
>>       __u16 port;
>> } __attribute__((packed));
>> // https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4632

>> IP addresses (and subnets) should not be part of a rule, at least for now. Indeed, IP addresses are tied either to the system architecture (e.g. container configuration), the local network or Internet, hence moving targets not >> controlled by application developers. Moreover, from a kernel point of view, it is more complex to check and handle subnets, which are most of the time tied to the Netfilter infrastructure, not suitable for Landlock because >> of its unprivileged nature.

>> On the other side, protocols such as TCP and their associated ports are normalized and are tied to an application semantic (e.g. TCP/443 for HTTPS).

>> There is other advantages to exclude subnets from this type of rules for now (e.g. they could be composed with protocols/ports), but that may come later.

>> I then think that a first MVP to bring network access control support to Landlock should focus only on TCP and related ports (i.e. services). I propose to not use my previous definition of landlock_net_cidr4_attr but to have a >> landlock_net_service_attr instead:

>> struct landlock_net_service_attr {
>>     __u64 allowed_access; // LANDLOCK_NET_*_TCP
>>     __u16 port;
>> } __attribute__((packed));

>> This attribute should handle IPv4 and IPv6 indistinguishably.

[...]

>>
>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>> - CREATE
>> - ACCEPT
>> - BIND
>> - LISTEN
>> - CONNECT
>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>> - SEND
>> - SHUTDOWN
>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)

>> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct sockaddr).

>> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the network access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more 
>>complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch series, once TCP is supported.

I think that having access rights like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY/LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UDP_SOCKET_DENY might be useful during initialization phase of container/sandbox, cause a user could have the possibility to restrict the creation of some type of sockets at all, and to reduce the attack surface related to security aspect.
So the logic could be the following:
	1. Process restricts creation UDP sockets, allows TCP one.  
		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_*_SOCKET_DENY rules are tied to process task_struct cause there are no sockets inodes created at this moment.
	2. Creates necessary number of sockets.
	3. Restricts sockets' access rights. 
		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_* / LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_* access rights are tied to sockets inodes individually.
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 18, 2021, 10:59 a.m. UTC | #8
Here is the beginning of the thread: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/a1769c4239ee4e8aadb65f9ebb6061d8@huawei.com/

On 17/12/2021 22:29, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:38 AM Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> wrote:

[...]

>>>>
>>>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>>>> - CREATE
>>>> - ACCEPT
>>>> - BIND
>>>> - LISTEN
>>>> - CONNECT
>>>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>>>> - SEND
>>>> - SHUTDOWN
>>>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>>>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
>>
>> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP
>> and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct
>> sockaddr).
>>
>> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the network
>> access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram
>> (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more
>> complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch
>> series, once TCP is supported.
> 
> Thanks for cc:ing the netdev list. I miss some of context, assume that
> limits are configured on a socket basis.
> 
> One practical use-case I had for voluntary relinquish of privileges:
> do not allow connect AF_UNSPEC. This is a little-used feature that
> allows an already established connection to disconnect and create a
> new connection. Without this option, it is possible for a privileged
> process to create connections and hand those off to a less privileged
> process. Also, do not allow listen calls, to avoid elevating a socket
> to a listener.

Thanks for the heads up. connect + AF_UNSPEC is a nice trick but the 
security_socket_connect() hook should handle that, and then the 
LANDOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP right too. This should be part of tests 
though.
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 18, 2021, 11:01 a.m. UTC | #9
On 18/12/2021 09:26, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> Hi, Mickaёl
> Thanks again for your opinion about minimal Landlock IPv4 network version.
> I have already started refactoring the code.
> Here are some additional thoughts about the design.

[...]

>>>
>>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>>> - CREATE
>>> - ACCEPT
>>> - BIND
>>> - LISTEN
>>> - CONNECT
>>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>>> - SEND
>>> - SHUTDOWN
>>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
> 
>>> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct sockaddr).
> 
>>> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the network access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more
>>> complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch series, once TCP is supported.
> 
> I think that having access rights like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY/LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UDP_SOCKET_DENY might be useful during initialization phase of container/sandbox, cause a user could have the possibility to restrict the creation of some type of sockets at all, and to reduce the attack surface related to security aspect.
> So the logic could be the following:
> 	1. Process restricts creation UDP sockets, allows TCP one.
> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_*_SOCKET_DENY rules are tied to process task_struct cause there are no sockets inodes created at this moment.
> 	2. Creates necessary number of sockets.
> 	3. Restricts sockets' access rights.
> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_* / LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_* access rights are tied to sockets inodes individually.	
> 

Reducing the attack surface on the kernel is valuable but not the 
primary goal of Landlock. seccomp is designed for this task and a 
seccomp filters can easily forbid creation of specific sockets. We 
should consider using both Landlock and seccomp, and your use case of 
denying UDP vs. TCP is good.

Anyway, the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY name in not 
appropriate. Indeed, mixing "access" and "deny" doesn't make sense. A 
LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP access could be useful if we can define 
such TCP socket semantic, e.g. with a port, which is not possible when 
creating a socket, and it is OK.
Konstantin Meskhidze (A) Dec. 20, 2021, 3:52 a.m. UTC | #10
Hi, Mickaёl!

-----Original Message-----
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net> 
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 7:01 PM
To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
Cc: yusongping <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>; linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>; Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; netfilter@vger.kernel.org; Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation


On 18/12/2021 09:26, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> Hi, Mickaёl
> Thanks again for your opinion about minimal Landlock IPv4 network version.
> I have already started refactoring the code.
> Here are some additional thoughts about the design.

[...]

>>>
>>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>>> - CREATE
>>> - ACCEPT
>>> - BIND
>>> - LISTEN
>>> - CONNECT
>>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>>> - SEND
>>> - SHUTDOWN
>>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
> 
>>> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct sockaddr).
> 
>>> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the 
>>> network access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch series, once TCP is supported.
> 
> I think that having access rights like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY/LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UDP_SOCKET_DENY might be useful during initialization phase of container/sandbox, cause a user could have the possibility to restrict the creation of some type of sockets at all, and to reduce the attack surface related to security aspect.
> So the logic could be the following:
> 	1. Process restricts creation UDP sockets, allows TCP one.
> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_*_SOCKET_DENY rules are tied to process task_struct cause there are no sockets inodes created at this moment.
> 	2. Creates necessary number of sockets.
> 	3. Restricts sockets' access rights.
> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_* / LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_* access rights are tied to sockets inodes individually.	
> 

>  Reducing the attack surface on the kernel is valuable but not the primary goal of Landlock. seccomp is designed for this task and a seccomp filters can easily forbid creation of specific sockets. We should consider using > both Landlock and seccomp, and your use case of denying UDP vs. TCP is good.

> Anyway, the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY name in not appropriate. Indeed, mixing "access" and "deny" doesn't make sense. A LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP access could be useful if > > we can define such TCP socket semantic, e.g. with a port, which is not possible when creating a socket, and it is OK.

I think we can define if it’s a TCP or UDP socket in the moment of its creating using TYPE field in socket(domain, TYPE, protocol) function:
	- TCP services use SOCK_STREAM type.
	- UDP ones use SOCK_DGRAM type.
So we can have LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP access rule in TCP socket semantic, and therefore check socket_create(domain, SOCK_STREAM, protocol) hook.
The similar rule( LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UPD) could be used for recognizing UDP sockets in future patches.
Mickaël Salaün Dec. 21, 2021, 9:15 p.m. UTC | #11
On 20/12/2021 04:52, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
> Hi, Mickaёl!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 7:01 PM
> To: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
> Cc: yusongping <yusongping@huawei.com>; Artem Kuzin <artem.kuzin@huawei.com>; linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>; Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; netfilter@vger.kernel.org; Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Landlock network PoC implementation
> 
> 
> On 18/12/2021 09:26, Konstantin Meskhidze wrote:
>> Hi, Mickaёl
>> Thanks again for your opinion about minimal Landlock IPv4 network version.
>> I have already started refactoring the code.
>> Here are some additional thoughts about the design.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>
>>>> Accesses/suffixes should be:
>>>> - CREATE
>>>> - ACCEPT
>>>> - BIND
>>>> - LISTEN
>>>> - CONNECT
>>>> - RECEIVE (RECEIVE_FROM and SEND_TO should not be needed)
>>>> - SEND
>>>> - SHUTDOWN
>>>> - GET_OPTION (GETSOCKOPT)
>>>> - SET_OPTION (SETSOCKOPT)
>>
>>>> For now, the only access rights should be LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_TCP and LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_TCP (tie to two LSM hooks with struct sockaddr).
>>
>>>> These attribute and access right changes reduce the scope of the
>>>> network access control and make it simpler but still really useful. Datagram (e.g. UDP, which could add BIND_UDP and SEND_UDP) sockets will be more complex to restrict correctly and should then come in another patch series, once TCP is supported.
>>
>> I think that having access rights like LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY/LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UDP_SOCKET_DENY might be useful during initialization phase of container/sandbox, cause a user could have the possibility to restrict the creation of some type of sockets at all, and to reduce the attack surface related to security aspect.
>> So the logic could be the following:
>> 	1. Process restricts creation UDP sockets, allows TCP one.
>> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_*_SOCKET_DENY rules are tied to process task_struct cause there are no sockets inodes created at this moment.
>> 	2. Creates necessary number of sockets.
>> 	3. Restricts sockets' access rights.
>> 		- LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_BIND_* / LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CONNECT_* access rights are tied to sockets inodes individually.	
>>
> 
>>   Reducing the attack surface on the kernel is valuable but not the primary goal of Landlock. seccomp is designed for this task and a seccomp filters can easily forbid creation of specific sockets. We should consider using > both Landlock and seccomp, and your use case of denying UDP vs. TCP is good.
> 
>> Anyway, the LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP_SOCKET_DENY name in not appropriate. Indeed, mixing "access" and "deny" doesn't make sense. A LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP access could be useful if > > we can define such TCP socket semantic, e.g. with a port, which is not possible when creating a socket, and it is OK.
> 
> I think we can define if it’s a TCP or UDP socket in the moment of its creating using TYPE field in socket(domain, TYPE, protocol) function:
> 	- TCP services use SOCK_STREAM type.
> 	- UDP ones use SOCK_DGRAM type.
> So we can have LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_TCP access rule in TCP socket semantic, and therefore check socket_create(domain, SOCK_STREAM, protocol) hook.
> The similar rule( LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_CREATE_UPD) could be used for recognizing UDP sockets in future patches.
> 

Allowing or forbidding socket creation is easy (and can also be done 
with seccomp), but it is not an access control per se (i.e. a socket 
doesn't give access to any data, but communicating with a peer does). 
Restricting access to network peers makes sense for Landlock, but not 
(only) file descriptor creation for now. In the future, this kind of 
restriction could make sense to implement Capsicum but it would probably 
be another interface.
Konstantin Meskhidze (A) Dec. 30, 2021, 6:53 a.m. UTC | #12
Hi, Paul
Thanks for your comment.

12/11/2021 2:01 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 11:57 AM Casey Schaufler <casey@schaufler-ca.com> wrote:
>> As I think you've realized, *sockets are not objects*. There
>> isn't a way to justify them as objects without introducing
>> ethereal or magical subjects that don't exist. Sockets are
>> part of a process. OK, it's not that simple, and it would be
>> foolish to deny that a socket may have security relevant
>> properties. But they aren't objects.
>>
>> I strongly recommend that you follow Smack's example and
>> use the sending task and receiving task attributes to make
>> the decision. You may find that storing that information
>> in the socket security blob is convenient.
>>
>> BTW - not everyone agrees with me on this topic. I'll leave
>> the misguided to make their own arguments. ;)
> 
> I'm running low on my lets-argue-on-the-internet motivation today, but
> I feel like I'm being goaded into some sort of comment so I will
> simply offer SELinux as a rebuttal to Casey's comments.  I think that
> either approach can be acceptable, it depends on how your security
> model works and your comfort level with the various tradeoffs
> associated with each approach.  I personally prefer the approach
> SELinux has taken (minus some of the compat cruft we are saddled with,
> not to mention that restrictions handed to use from netdev), but I'll
> admit a certain level of bias in this.
> 
I just tried to follow Landlock's implementation concept: attaching 
policy rules to kernel objects.
For filesystem "objects" are underlying inodes.
For socket the same approach could be used - using sockets' inodes as 
"object".
I also read about this concept from some LSM papers:
https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/sec02/full_papers/wright/wright.pdf
https://elinux.org/images/0/0a/ELC_Inside_LSM.pdf

> --
> paul moore
> www.paul-moore.com
> .
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
index b3d952067f59..7d980b55d345 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/landlock.h
@@ -25,6 +25,14 @@  struct landlock_ruleset_attr {
 	 * compatibility reasons.
 	 */
 	__u64 handled_access_fs;
+
+	/**
+	 * @handled_actions_net: Bitmask of actions (cf. `Network flags`_)
+	 * that is handled by this ruleset and should then be forbidden if no
+	 * rule explicitly allow them.  This is needed for backward
+	 * compatibility reasons.
+	 */
+	__u64 handled_access_net;
 };

 /*
@@ -46,6 +54,18 @@  enum landlock_rule_type {
 	 * landlock_path_beneath_attr .
 	 */
 	LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH = 1,
+
+	/**
+	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_NET: Type of a &struct
+	 * landlock_net_beneath_attr .
+	 */
+	LANDLOCK_RULE_NET = 2,
+
+	/**
+	 * @LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM: Number of
+	 * Landlock	rules type: fs, network, ipc ect.
+	 */
+	LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM
 };

 /**
@@ -70,6 +90,22 @@  struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
 	 */
 } __attribute__((packed));

+/**
+ * struct landlock_path_beneath_attr - Network actions definition
+ *
+ * Argument of sys_landlock_add_rule().
+ */
+struct landlock_net_beneath_attr {
+	/**
+	 * @allowed_actions: Bitmask of allowed network actions for a current process
+	 */
+	__u64 allowed_actions;
+	/*
+	 * This struct is packed to avoid trailing reserved members.
+	 * Cf. security/landlock/syscalls.c:build_check_abi()
+	 */
+} __attribute__((packed));
+
 /**
  * DOC: fs_access
  *
@@ -134,4 +170,37 @@  struct landlock_path_beneath_attr {
 #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_BLOCK			(1ULL << 11)
 #define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM			(1ULL << 12)

+/**
+ * DOC: net_actions
+ *
+ * A set of actions on kernel objects may be defined by an attribute (e.g.
+ * &struct landlock_net_beneath_attr) including a bitmask of access.
+ *
+ * Network flags
+ * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ *
+ * These flags enable to restrict a sandboxed process to a set of actions on
+ * network actions.
+ *
+ * A process can only create these type sockets with allowed actions:
+ *
+ * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE...: Create a unix/inet socket.
+ *
+ * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a UNIX domain
+ *   socket.
+ * - %LANDLOCK_ACCESS_NET_MAKE_INET_SOCK: Create (or rename or link) a IPv4 Internet
+ *   protocols domain socket.
+ *
+ * .. warning::
+ *
+ *   It is currently not possible to restrict some network-related actions
+ *   accessible through these syscall families:   accept(2), bind(2),
+ *   close(2), connect(2), fcntl(2),getpeername(2), getsockname(2),
+ *   getsockopt(2), listen(2), read(2), recv(2), select(2), send(2),
+ *   shutdown(2), socketpair(2),
+ *   Future Landlock evolutions will enable to restrict them.
+ */
+#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_UNIX_SOCK	 (1ULL << 0)
+#define LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK	 (1ULL << 1)
+
 #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_LANDLOCK_H */
diff --git a/security/landlock/Makefile b/security/landlock/Makefile
index 7bbd2f413b3e..afa44baaa83a 100644
--- a/security/landlock/Makefile
+++ b/security/landlock/Makefile
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ 
 obj-$(CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK) := landlock.o

 landlock-y := setup.o syscalls.o object.o ruleset.o \
-	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o
+	cred.o ptrace.o fs.o net.o
diff --git a/security/landlock/fs.c b/security/landlock/fs.c
index 97b8e421f617..bb5967fc5dd4 100644
--- a/security/landlock/fs.c
+++ b/security/landlock/fs.c
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@  int landlock_append_fs_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
 		return -EINVAL;

 	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
-	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->fs_access_masks[0];
+	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS & ~ruleset->access_masks[0][0];
 	object = get_inode_object(d_backing_inode(path->dentry));
 	if (IS_ERR(object))
 		return PTR_ERR(object);
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@  static int check_access_path(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
 	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested accesses. */
 	layer_mask = 0;
 	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
-		if (domain->fs_access_masks[i] & access_request)
+		if (domain->access_masks[0][i] & access_request)
 			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
 	}
 	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
diff --git a/security/landlock/limits.h b/security/landlock/limits.h
index 2a0a1095ee27..56f883530545 100644
--- a/security/landlock/limits.h
+++ b/security/landlock/limits.h
@@ -18,4 +18,7 @@ 
 #define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS		LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_SYM
 #define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS		((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_FS << 1) - 1)

+#define LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET	LANDLOCK_ACCESS_FS_MAKE_INET_SOCK
+#define LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET	((LANDLOCK_LAST_ACCESS_NET << 1) - 1)
+
 #endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_LIMITS_H */
diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..49af2c821f79
--- /dev/null
+++ b/security/landlock/net.c
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@ 
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
+/*
+ * Landlock LSM - Filesystem management and hooks
+ *
+ * Copyright © 2016-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
+ * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
+ */
+
+#include <linux/atomic.h>
+#include <linux/bitops.h>
+#include <linux/bits.h>
+#include <linux/compiler_types.h>
+#include <linux/dcache.h>
+#include <linux/err.h>
+#include <linux/fs.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/limits.h>
+#include <linux/list.h>
+#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
+#include <linux/mount.h>
+#include <linux/namei.h>
+#include <linux/path.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/stat.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+#include <linux/wait_bit.h>
+#include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>
+#include <linux/thread_info.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+
+
+#include "common.h"
+#include "cred.h"
+#include "fs.h"
+#include "limits.h"
+#include "object.h"
+#include "ruleset.h"
+#include "setup.h"
+#include "net.h"
+
+/* Underlying object management */
+
+static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
+{
+	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
+
+	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
+	object->underobj = NULL;
+
+	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
+	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
+
+}
+
+static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
+	.release = release_task_object
+};
+
+struct task_struct;
+
+static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
+{
+	return current;
+}
+
+int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
+						     u32 access_hierarchy)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
+{
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
+	LSM_HOOK_INIT(socket_create, hook_socket_create),
+};
+
+__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void)
+{
+	security_add_hooks(landlock_hooks, ARRAY_SIZE(landlock_hooks),
+			LANDLOCK_NAME);
+}
diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..094ac150ac3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/security/landlock/net.h
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ 
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * Landlock LSM - Network management and hooks
+ *
+ * Copyright © 2017-2020 Mickaël Salaün <mic@digikod.net>
+ * Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
+ */
+
+#ifndef _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
+#define _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H
+
+#include <linux/fs.h>
+#include <linux/init.h>
+#include <asm/current.h>
+#include <linux/cred.h>
+#include <linux/errno.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/lsm_hooks.h>
+#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+
+#include "common.h"
+#include "ruleset.h"
+#include "setup.h"
+
+
+/**
+ * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
+ *
+ * Enable to reference a &struct landlock_object tied to a task (i.e.
+ * underlying object).
+ */
+struct landlock_task_security {
+	/**
+	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
+	 */
+	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
+};
+
+static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
+		const struct task_struct *const task)
+{
+	return task->security + landlock_blob_sizes.lbs_task;
+}
+
+__init void landlock_add_net_hooks(void);
+
+int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
+						     u32 access_hierarchy);
+
+#endif /* _SECURITY_LANDLOCK_NET_H */
diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
index ec72b9262bf3..cec0fd1f83df 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ 
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
 #include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include <uapi/linux/landlock.h>

 #include "limits.h"
 #include "object.h"
@@ -27,9 +28,23 @@ 
 static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
 {
 	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;
+	u16 row, col, rules_types_num;
+
+	new_ruleset = kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ruleset) +
+			      sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks),
+			      GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
+
+	rules_types_num = LANDLOCK_RULE_TYPE_NUM - 1;
+	for (row = 0; row < rules_types_num; row++) {
+		new_ruleset->access_masks[row] = kmalloc(sizeof *(new_ruleset->access_masks[row]),
+							 GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
+		for (col = 0; col < num_layers; col++) {
+			static int count = 1;
+
+			new_ruleset->access_masks[row][col] = count++;
+		}
+	}

-	new_ruleset = kzalloc(struct_size(new_ruleset, fs_access_masks,
-				num_layers), GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
 	if (!new_ruleset)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 	refcount_set(&new_ruleset->usage, 1);
@@ -39,21 +54,25 @@  static struct landlock_ruleset *create_ruleset(const u32 num_layers)
 	/*
 	 * hierarchy = NULL
 	 * num_rules = 0
-	 * fs_access_masks[] = 0
+	 * access_masks[] = 0
 	 */
 	return new_ruleset;
 }

-struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask)
+struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
+						 const u32 net_access_mask)
 {
 	struct landlock_ruleset *new_ruleset;

 	/* Informs about useless ruleset. */
-	if (!fs_access_mask)
+	if (!fs_access_mask && !net_access_mask)
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMSG);
 	new_ruleset = create_ruleset(1);
-	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset))
-		new_ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] = fs_access_mask;
+	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && fs_access_mask)
+		new_ruleset->access_masks[0][0] = fs_access_mask;
+	if (!IS_ERR(new_ruleset) && net_access_mask)
+		new_ruleset->access_masks[1][0] = net_access_mask;
+
 	return new_ruleset;
 }

@@ -116,11 +135,13 @@  static void build_check_ruleset(void)
 		.num_rules = ~0,
 		.num_layers = ~0,
 	};
-	typeof(ruleset.fs_access_masks[0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
+	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[0][0]) fs_access_mask = ~0;
+	typeof(ruleset.access_masks[1][0]) net_access_mask = ~0;

 	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_rules < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_RULES);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(ruleset.num_layers < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(fs_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS);
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(net_access_mask < LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET);
 }

 /**
@@ -279,7 +300,10 @@  static int merge_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const dst,
 		err = -EINVAL;
 		goto out_unlock;
 	}
-	dst->fs_access_masks[dst->num_layers - 1] = src->fs_access_masks[0];
+	/* Copy fs access masks. */
+	dst->access_masks[0][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[0][0];
+	/* Copy network access masks. */
+	dst->access_masks[1][dst->num_layers - 1] = src->access_masks[1][0];

 	/* Merges the @src tree. */
 	rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(walker_rule, next_rule,
@@ -337,8 +361,8 @@  static int inherit_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const parent,
 		goto out_unlock;
 	}
 	/* Copies the parent layer stack and leaves a space for the new layer. */
-	memcpy(child->fs_access_masks, parent->fs_access_masks,
-			flex_array_size(parent, fs_access_masks, parent->num_layers));
+	memcpy(child->access_masks, parent->access_masks,
+			flex_array_size(parent, access_masks, parent->num_layers));

 	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!parent->hierarchy)) {
 		err = -EINVAL;
diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
index 2d3ed7ec5a0a..8f4285fab372 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@  struct landlock_ruleset {
 		 * section.  This is only used by
 		 * landlock_put_ruleset_deferred() when @usage reaches zero.
 		 * The fields @lock, @usage, @num_rules, @num_layers and
-		 * @fs_access_masks are then unused.
+		 * @access_masks are then unused.
 		 */
 		struct work_struct work_free;
 		struct {
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@  struct landlock_ruleset {
 			 */
 			u32 num_layers;
 			/**
-			 * @fs_access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
+			 * @access_masks: Contains the subset of filesystem
 			 * actions that are restricted by a ruleset.  A domain
 			 * saves all layers of merged rulesets in a stack
 			 * (FAM), starting from the first layer to the last
@@ -135,12 +135,13 @@  struct landlock_ruleset {
 			 * layers are set once and never changed for the
 			 * lifetime of the ruleset.
 			 */
-			u16 fs_access_masks[];
+			u16 *access_masks[];
 		};
 	};
 };

-struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask);
+struct landlock_ruleset *landlock_create_ruleset(const u32 fs_access_mask,
+						 const u32 net_access_mask);

 void landlock_put_ruleset(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
 void landlock_put_ruleset_deferred(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset);
diff --git a/security/landlock/setup.c b/security/landlock/setup.c
index f8e8e980454c..91ab06ec8ce0 100644
--- a/security/landlock/setup.c
+++ b/security/landlock/setup.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ 
 #include "fs.h"
 #include "ptrace.h"
 #include "setup.h"
+#include "net.h"

 bool landlock_initialized __lsm_ro_after_init = false;

@@ -21,6 +22,7 @@  struct lsm_blob_sizes landlock_blob_sizes __lsm_ro_after_init = {
 	.lbs_cred = sizeof(struct landlock_cred_security),
 	.lbs_inode = sizeof(struct landlock_inode_security),
 	.lbs_superblock = sizeof(struct landlock_superblock_security),
+	.lbs_task = sizeof(struct landlock_task_security),
 };

 static int __init landlock_init(void)
@@ -28,6 +30,7 @@  static int __init landlock_init(void)
 	landlock_add_cred_hooks();
 	landlock_add_ptrace_hooks();
 	landlock_add_fs_hooks();
+	landlock_add_net_hooks();
 	landlock_initialized = true;
 	pr_info("Up and running.\n");
 	return 0;
diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
index 32396962f04d..72cb1b0cb8a9 100644
--- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
+++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ 
 #include "limits.h"
 #include "ruleset.h"
 #include "setup.h"
+#include "net.h"

 /**
  * copy_min_struct_from_user - Safe future-proof argument copying
@@ -73,7 +74,8 @@  static void build_check_abi(void)
 {
 	struct landlock_ruleset_attr ruleset_attr;
 	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
-	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size;
+	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr net_beneath_attr;
+	size_t ruleset_size, path_beneath_size, net_beneath_size;

 	/*
 	 * For each user space ABI structures, first checks that there is no
@@ -81,13 +83,18 @@  static void build_check_abi(void)
 	 * struct size.
 	 */
 	ruleset_size = sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
+	ruleset_size += sizeof(ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != ruleset_size);
-	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 8);
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(ruleset_attr) != 16);

 	path_beneath_size = sizeof(path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
 	path_beneath_size += sizeof(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != path_beneath_size);
 	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(path_beneath_attr) != 12);
+
+	net_beneath_size = sizeof(net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != net_beneath_size);
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(net_beneath_attr) != 8);
 }

 /* Ruleset handling */
@@ -174,20 +181,33 @@  SYSCALL_DEFINE3(landlock_create_ruleset,
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}

-	/* Copies raw user space buffer. */
+	/* Copies raw user space buffer for fs. */
 	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
 			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_fs),
 			attr, size);
 	if (err)
 		return err;

+	/* Copies raw user space buffer for network. */
+	err = copy_min_struct_from_user(&ruleset_attr, sizeof(ruleset_attr),
+			offsetofend(typeof(ruleset_attr), handled_access_net),
+			attr, size);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
 	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
 	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS) !=
 			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_FS)
 		return -EINVAL;

+	/* Checks content (and 32-bits cast). */
+	if ((ruleset_attr.handled_access_net | LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET) !=
+			LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	/* Checks arguments and transforms to kernel struct. */
-	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs);
+	ruleset = landlock_create_ruleset(ruleset_attr.handled_access_fs,
+					  ruleset_attr.handled_access_net);
 	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
 		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);

@@ -306,6 +326,7 @@  SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
 		const void __user *const, rule_attr, const __u32, flags)
 {
 	struct landlock_path_beneath_attr path_beneath_attr;
+	struct landlock_net_beneath_attr  net_beneath_attr;
 	struct path path;
 	struct landlock_ruleset *ruleset;
 	int res, err;
@@ -317,47 +338,88 @@  SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
 	if (flags)
 		return -EINVAL;

-	if (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH)
+	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
+	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
 		return -EINVAL;

-	/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
-	res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
-			sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
-	if (res)
-		return -EFAULT;
-
-	/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
-	ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
-	if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
-		return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
-
-	/*
-	 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
-	 * are ignored in path walks.
-	 */
-	if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
-		err = -ENOMSG;
-		goto out_put_ruleset;
+	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
+		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
+		res = copy_from_user(&path_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
+				sizeof(path_beneath_attr));
+		if (res)
+			return -EFAULT;
 	}
-	/*
-	 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
-	 * (ruleset->fs_access_masks[0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
-	 */
-	if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) !=
-			ruleset->fs_access_masks[0]) {
-		err = -EINVAL;
-		goto out_put_ruleset;
+
+	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
+		/* Copies raw user space buffer, only one type for now. */
+		res = copy_from_user(&net_beneath_attr, rule_attr,
+				sizeof(net_beneath_attr));
+		if (res)
+			return -EFAULT;
 	}

-	/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
-	err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
-	if (err)
-		goto out_put_ruleset;
+	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {
+		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
+		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
+		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
+			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
+
+		/*
+		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
+		 * are ignored in path walks.
+		 */
+		if (!path_beneath_attr.allowed_access) {
+			err = -ENOMSG;
+			goto out_put_ruleset;
+		}
+		/*
+		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
+		 * (ruleset->access_masks[0][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
+		 */
+		if ((path_beneath_attr.allowed_access | ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) !=
+				ruleset->access_masks[0][0]) {
+			err = -EINVAL;
+			goto out_put_ruleset;
+		}
+
+		/* Gets and checks the new rule. */
+		err = get_path_from_fd(path_beneath_attr.parent_fd, &path);
+		if (err)
+			goto out_put_ruleset;
+
+		/* Imports the new rule. */
+		err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
+				path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
+		path_put(&path);
+	}

-	/* Imports the new rule. */
-	err = landlock_append_fs_rule(ruleset, &path,
-			path_beneath_attr.allowed_access);
-	path_put(&path);
+	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_NET) {
+		/* Gets and checks the ruleset. */
+		ruleset = get_ruleset_from_fd(ruleset_fd, FMODE_CAN_WRITE);
+		if (IS_ERR(ruleset))
+			return PTR_ERR(ruleset);
+
+		/*
+		 * Informs about useless rule: empty allowed_access (i.e. deny rules)
+		 * are ignored in network actions
+		 */
+		if (!net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions) {
+			err = -ENOMSG;
+			goto out_put_ruleset;
+		}
+		/*
+		 * Checks that allowed_access matches the @ruleset constraints
+		 * (ruleset->access_masks[1][0] is automatically upgraded to 64-bits).
+		 */
+		if ((net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions | ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) !=
+				ruleset->access_masks[1][0]) {
+			err = -EINVAL;
+			goto out_put_ruleset;
+		}
+
+		/* Imports the new rule. */
+		err = landlock_append_net_rule(ruleset, net_beneath_attr.allowed_actions);
+	}

 out_put_ruleset:
 	landlock_put_ruleset(ruleset);
--
2.25.1


From 5216f8c21805879cd41d57f858817417669a7f40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 12:04:11 +0800
Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] landlock: socket_create() hook implemented

Implement socket_create() hook.
Current prototype can restrict creating two
types of sockets: INET and UNIX. Its just basic idea
how Landlock could support network confinement.

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Meskhidze <konstantin.meskhidze@huawei.com>
---
 security/landlock/net.c      | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 security/landlock/net.h      |   5 +-
 security/landlock/ruleset.h  |   2 +-
 security/landlock/syscalls.c |   2 +-
 4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/security/landlock/net.c b/security/landlock/net.c
index 49af2c821f79..3c6b3a6da322 100644
--- a/security/landlock/net.c
+++ b/security/landlock/net.c
@@ -42,17 +42,10 @@ 
 #include "net.h"

 /* Underlying object management */
-
 static void release_task_object(struct landlock_object *const object)
 {
-	struct task_struct *const task = object->underobj;
-
 	/* Untie landlock object from kernel object */
 	object->underobj = NULL;
-
-	/* Untie kernel object from landlock object */
-	rcu_assign_pointer(landlock_task(task)->object, NULL);
-
 }

 static const struct landlock_object_underops landlock_net_underops = {
@@ -66,15 +59,143 @@  static inline struct task_struct *get_current_task(void)
 	return current;
 }

+static struct landlock_object *get_task_object(struct task_struct *const task)
+{
+	struct landlock_object *object, *new_object;
+	struct landlock_task_security *task_sec = landlock_task(task);
+
+	object = task_sec->object;
+	if (object)
+		if (likely(refcount_inc_not_zero(&object->usage)))
+			return object;
+
+	/*
+	 * If there is no object tied to task, then create a new one.
+	 */
+	new_object = landlock_create_object(&landlock_net_underops, task);
+	if (IS_ERR(new_object))
+		return new_object;
+
+	task_sec->object = new_object;
+	return new_object;
+}
+
+
 int landlock_append_net_rule(struct landlock_ruleset *const ruleset,
-						     u32 access_hierarchy)
+						     u32 access_rights)
 {
-	return 0;
+	int err;
+	struct landlock_object *object;
+
+	/* Transforms relative access rights to absolute ones. */
+	access_rights |= LANDLOCK_MASK_ACCESS_NET & ~ruleset->access_masks[1][0];
+
+	object = get_task_object(get_current_task());
+	if (IS_ERR(object))
+		return PTR_ERR(object);
+	mutex_lock(&ruleset->lock);
+	err = landlock_insert_rule(ruleset, object, access_rights << 16);
+	mutex_unlock(&ruleset->lock);
+	/*
+	 * No need to check for an error because landlock_insert_rule()
+	 * increments the refcount for the new object if needed.
+	 */
+	landlock_put_object(object);
+	return err;
+}
+
+/* Access-control management */
+static inline bool unmask_layers(
+		const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
+		const u32 access_request, u64 layer_mask)
+{
+	const struct landlock_rule *rule;
+	const struct task_struct *task;
+	size_t i;
+	bool allowed = false;
+
+	task = get_current_task();
+
+	rule = landlock_find_rule(domain, landlock_task(task)->object);
+
+	/* Grant access if there is no rule for an oject */
+	if (!rule)
+		return allowed = true;
+
+	/*
+	 * An access is granted if, for each policy layer, at least one rule
+	 * encountered on network actions requested,
+	 * regardless of their position in the layer stack.  We must then check
+	 * the remaining layers, from the first added layer to
+	 * the last one.
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < rule->num_layers; i++) {
+		const struct landlock_layer *const layer = &rule->layers[i];
+		const u64 layer_level = BIT_ULL(layer->level - 1);
+
+		/* Checks that the layer grants access to the request. */
+		if ((layer->access & (access_request << 16)) == (access_request << 16)) {
+			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
+			allowed = true;
+
+			if (layer_mask == 0)
+				return allowed;
+		} else {
+			layer_mask &= ~layer_level;
+
+			if (layer_mask == 0)
+				return allowed;
+		}
+	}
+	return allowed;
+}
+
+static int check_socket_access(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
+							 int family)
+{
+	bool allowed = false;
+	u64 layer_mask;
+	size_t i;
+
+	/* Make sure all layers can be checked. */
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(BITS_PER_TYPE(layer_mask) < LANDLOCK_MAX_NUM_LAYERS);
+
+	if (!family)
+		return 0;
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!domain))
+		return 0;
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(domain->num_layers < 1))
+		return -EACCES;
+
+	/* Saves all layers handling a subset of requested
+	 * socket family.
+	 */
+	layer_mask = 0;
+	for (i = 0; i < domain->num_layers; i++) {
+		if (domain->access_masks[1][i] & family)
+			layer_mask |= BIT_ULL(i);
+	}
+	/* An access request not handled by the domain is allowed. */
+	if (layer_mask == 0)
+		return 0;
+
+	/*
+	 * We need to walk through all the hierarchy to not miss any relevant
+	 * restriction.
+	 */
+	allowed = unmask_layers(domain, family, layer_mask);
+
+	return allowed ? 0 : -EACCES;
 }

 static int hook_socket_create(int family, int type, int protocol, int kern)
 {
-	return 0;
+	const struct landlock_ruleset *const dom = landlock_get_current_domain();
+
+	if (!dom)
+		return 0;
+
+	return check_socket_access(dom, family);
 }

 static struct security_hook_list landlock_hooks[] __lsm_ro_after_init = {
diff --git a/security/landlock/net.h b/security/landlock/net.h
index 094ac150ac3c..2036272ff106 100644
--- a/security/landlock/net.h
+++ b/security/landlock/net.h
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ 
 #include "ruleset.h"
 #include "setup.h"

-
 /**
  * struct landlock_task_security - Process task security blob
  *
@@ -32,9 +31,9 @@ 
  */
 struct landlock_task_security {
 	/**
-	 * @object: Weak pointer to an allocated object.
+	 * @object: Pointer to an allocated object.
 	 */
-	struct landlock_object __rcu *object;
+	struct landlock_object *object;
 };

 static inline struct landlock_task_security *landlock_task(
diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.h b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
index 8f4285fab372..cec3fc489531 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.h
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.h
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@  struct landlock_layer {
 	 * @access: Bitfield of allowed actions on the kernel object.  They are
 	 * relative to the object type (e.g. %LANDLOCK_ACTION_FS_READ).
 	 */
-	u16 access;
+	u32 access;
 };

 /**
diff --git a/security/landlock/syscalls.c b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
index 72cb1b0cb8a9..27653e7bf201 100644
--- a/security/landlock/syscalls.c
+++ b/security/landlock/syscalls.c
@@ -339,7 +339,7 @@  SYSCALL_DEFINE4(landlock_add_rule,
 		return -EINVAL;

 	if ((rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) &&
-	    (rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
+		(rule_type != LANDLOCK_RULE_NET))
 		return -EINVAL;

 	if (rule_type == LANDLOCK_RULE_PATH_BENEATH) {