mirror of
https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird.git
synced 2024-11-11 01:06:01 +03:00
2fcebfd6a8
When changing the unveil permissions of a preexisting node, we need to make sure that any intermediate nodes that were created before and should inherit permissions from the updated node are updated properly. This fixes the following bug: unveil("/home/anon/Documents", "r"); unveil("/home", "r"); Now there was a intermediate node for "/home/anon" which still had no permission, even though it should have inherited the permissions from "/home".
137 lines
5.1 KiB
C++
137 lines
5.1 KiB
C++
/*
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2018-2020, Andreas Kling <kling@serenityos.org>
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2021, Max Wipfli <mail@maxwipfli.ch>
|
|
*
|
|
* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
#include <AK/LexicalPath.h>
|
|
#include <AK/StringView.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/FileSystem/Custody.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/FileSystem/VirtualFileSystem.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/Process.h>
|
|
|
|
namespace Kernel {
|
|
|
|
static void update_intermediate_node_permissions(UnveilNode& root_node, UnveilAccess new_permissions)
|
|
{
|
|
for (auto& entry : root_node.children()) {
|
|
auto& node = static_cast<UnveilNode&>(*entry.value);
|
|
if (node.was_explicitly_unveiled())
|
|
continue;
|
|
node.set_metadata({ node.path(), new_permissions, node.was_explicitly_unveiled() });
|
|
update_intermediate_node_permissions(node, new_permissions);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
KResultOr<int> Process::sys$unveil(Userspace<const Syscall::SC_unveil_params*> user_params)
|
|
{
|
|
Syscall::SC_unveil_params params;
|
|
if (!copy_from_user(¶ms, user_params))
|
|
return EFAULT;
|
|
|
|
if (!params.path.characters && !params.permissions.characters) {
|
|
m_veil_state = VeilState::Locked;
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (m_veil_state == VeilState::Locked)
|
|
return EPERM;
|
|
|
|
if (!params.path.characters || !params.permissions.characters)
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
if (params.permissions.length > 5)
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
auto path_or_error = get_syscall_path_argument(params.path);
|
|
if (path_or_error.is_error())
|
|
return path_or_error.error();
|
|
auto& path = *path_or_error.value();
|
|
|
|
if (path.is_empty() || !path.view().starts_with('/'))
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
auto permissions = copy_string_from_user(params.permissions);
|
|
if (permissions.is_null())
|
|
return EFAULT;
|
|
|
|
// Let's work out permissions first...
|
|
unsigned new_permissions = 0;
|
|
for (const char permission : permissions) {
|
|
switch (permission) {
|
|
case 'r':
|
|
new_permissions |= UnveilAccess::Read;
|
|
break;
|
|
case 'w':
|
|
new_permissions |= UnveilAccess::Write;
|
|
break;
|
|
case 'x':
|
|
new_permissions |= UnveilAccess::Execute;
|
|
break;
|
|
case 'c':
|
|
new_permissions |= UnveilAccess::CreateOrRemove;
|
|
break;
|
|
case 'b':
|
|
new_permissions |= UnveilAccess::Browse;
|
|
break;
|
|
default:
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// Now, let's try and resolve the path and obtain custody of the inode on the disk, and if not, bail out with
|
|
// the error from resolve_path_without_veil()
|
|
// However, if the user specified unveil() with "c" permissions, we don't set errno if ENOENT is encountered,
|
|
// because they most likely intend the program to create the file for them later on.
|
|
// If this case is encountered, the parent node of the path is returned and the custody of that inode is used instead.
|
|
RefPtr<Custody> parent_custody; // Parent inode in case of ENOENT
|
|
String new_unveiled_path;
|
|
auto custody_or_error = VFS::the().resolve_path_without_veil(path.view(), root_directory(), &parent_custody);
|
|
if (!custody_or_error.is_error()) {
|
|
new_unveiled_path = custody_or_error.value()->absolute_path();
|
|
} else if (custody_or_error.error() == -ENOENT && parent_custody && (new_permissions & UnveilAccess::CreateOrRemove)) {
|
|
String basename = LexicalPath(path.view()).basename();
|
|
new_unveiled_path = String::formatted("{}/{}", parent_custody->absolute_path(), basename);
|
|
} else {
|
|
// FIXME Should this be EINVAL?
|
|
return custody_or_error.error();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
LexicalPath lexical_path(new_unveiled_path);
|
|
auto it = lexical_path.parts().begin();
|
|
auto& matching_node = m_unveiled_paths.traverse_until_last_accessible_node(it, lexical_path.parts().end());
|
|
if (it.is_end()) {
|
|
// If the path has already been explicitly unveiled, do not allow elevating its permissions.
|
|
if (matching_node.was_explicitly_unveiled()) {
|
|
if (new_permissions & ~matching_node.permissions())
|
|
return EPERM;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// It is possible that nodes that are "grandchildren" of the matching node have already been unveiled.
|
|
// This means that there may be intermediate nodes between this one and the unveiled "grandchildren"
|
|
// that inherited the current node's previous permissions. Those nodes now need their permissions
|
|
// updated to match the current node.
|
|
if (matching_node.permissions() != new_permissions)
|
|
update_intermediate_node_permissions(matching_node, (UnveilAccess)new_permissions);
|
|
|
|
matching_node.set_metadata({ matching_node.path(), (UnveilAccess)new_permissions, true });
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
matching_node.insert(
|
|
it,
|
|
lexical_path.parts().end(),
|
|
{ new_unveiled_path, (UnveilAccess)new_permissions, true },
|
|
[](auto& parent, auto& it) -> Optional<UnveilMetadata> {
|
|
auto path = LexicalPath::join(parent.path(), *it).string();
|
|
return UnveilMetadata { path, parent.permissions(), false };
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
VERIFY(m_veil_state != VeilState::Locked);
|
|
m_veil_state = VeilState::Dropped;
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|