Re: [RFC PATCH v9 05/16] ipe: add userspace interface

On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 02:04:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:58???PM Fan Wu <wufan(a)linux.microsoft.com&gt; wrote: > > > > From: Deven Bowers <deven.desai(a)linux.microsoft.com&gt; > > > > As is typical with LSMs, IPE uses securityfs as its interface with > > userspace. for a complete list of the interfaces and the respective > > inputs/outputs, please see the documentation under > > admin-guide/LSM/ipe.rst > > > > Signed-off-by: Deven Bowers <deven.desai(a)linux.microsoft.com&gt; > > Signed-off-by: Fan Wu <wufan(a)linux.microsoft.com&gt; > > ... > > > --- > > security/ipe/Makefile | 2 + > > security/ipe/fs.c | 101 +++++++++ > > security/ipe/fs.h | 17 ++ > > security/ipe/ipe.c | 3 + > > security/ipe/ipe.h | 2 + > > security/ipe/policy.c | 135 ++++++++++++ > > security/ipe/policy.h | 7 + > > security/ipe/policy_fs.c | 459 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 8 files changed, 726 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.c > > create mode 100644 security/ipe/fs.h > > create mode 100644 security/ipe/policy_fs.c

> > +/** > > + * ipe_update_policy - parse a new policy and replace @old with it. > > + * @addr: Supplies a pointer to the i_private for saving policy. > > + * @text: Supplies a pointer to the plain text policy. > > + * @textlen: Supplies the length of @text. > > + * @pkcs7: Supplies a pointer to a buffer containing a pkcs7 message. > > + * @pkcs7len: Supplies the length of @pkcs7len. > > + * > > + * @text/@textlen is mutually exclusive with @pkcs7/@pkcs7len - see > > + * ipe_new_policy. > > + * > > + * Return: > > + * * !IS_ERR - OK > > + * * -ENOENT - Policy doesn't exist > > + * * -EINVAL - New policy is invalid > > + */ > > +struct ipe_policy *ipe_update_policy(struct ipe_policy __rcu **addr, > > + const char *text, size_t textlen, > > + const char *pkcs7, size_t pkcs7len) > > +{ > > + int rc = 0; > > + struct ipe_policy *old, *new; > > + > > + old = ipe_get_policy_rcu(*addr); > > + if (!old) { > > + rc = -ENOENT; > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + new = ipe_new_policy(text, textlen, pkcs7, pkcs7len); > > + if (IS_ERR(new)) { > > + rc = PTR_ERR(new); > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + if (strcmp(new->parsed->name, old->parsed->name)) { > > + rc = -EINVAL; > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + if (ver_to_u64(old) > ver_to_u64(new)) { > > + rc = -EINVAL; > > + goto err; > > + } > > + > > + if (ipe_is_policy_active(old)) { > > I don't understand the is-active check, you want to make @new the new > active policy regardless, right? Could this is-active check ever be > false? Actually this is needed. Policy updates can be applied to any deployed policy, which may be saved in two places: the securityfs file node and the ipe_active_policy pointer. To update a policy, this function first checks if the policy saved in the securityfs file node is currently active. If so, it updates the ipe_active_policy pointer to point to the new policy, and finally updates the policy pointer in the securityfs to the new policy.