mirror of
https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird.git
synced 2024-11-08 04:50:08 +03:00
d8b514873f
Using the kernel stack is preferable, especially when the examined strings should be limited to a reasonable length. This is a small improvement, because if we don't actually move these strings then we don't need to own heap allocations for them during the syscall handler function scope. In addition to that, some kernel strings are known to be limited, like the hostname string, for these strings we also can use FixedStringBuffer to store and copy to and from these buffers, without using any heap allocations at all.
174 lines
7.5 KiB
C++
174 lines
7.5 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/RefPtr.h>
|
|
#include <AK/StringView.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/API/Unveil.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/FileSystem/Custody.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/FileSystem/VirtualFileSystem.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/Library/KLexicalPath.h>
|
|
#include <Kernel/Tasks/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.metadata_value().permissions = new_permissions;
|
|
update_intermediate_node_permissions(node, new_permissions);
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
static ErrorOr<void> update_unveil_data(Process::UnveilData& locked_unveil_data, StringView unveiled_path, UnveilAccess new_permissions)
|
|
{
|
|
auto path_parts = KLexicalPath::parts(unveiled_path);
|
|
auto it = path_parts.begin();
|
|
// Note: For the sake of completence, we check if the locked state was inherited
|
|
// by an execve'd sequence. If that is the case, just silently ignore this.
|
|
if (locked_unveil_data.state == VeilState::LockedInherited)
|
|
return {};
|
|
// NOTE: We have to check again, since the veil may have been locked by another thread
|
|
// while we were parsing the arguments.
|
|
if (locked_unveil_data.state == VeilState::Locked)
|
|
return EPERM;
|
|
|
|
auto& matching_node = locked_unveil_data.paths.traverse_until_last_accessible_node(it, 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, new_permissions);
|
|
|
|
matching_node.metadata_value().explicitly_unveiled = true;
|
|
matching_node.metadata_value().permissions = new_permissions;
|
|
locked_unveil_data.state = VeilState::Dropped;
|
|
return {};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
auto new_unveiled_path = TRY(KString::try_create(unveiled_path));
|
|
TRY(matching_node.insert(
|
|
it,
|
|
path_parts.end(),
|
|
{ move(new_unveiled_path), new_permissions, true },
|
|
[](auto& parent, auto& it) -> ErrorOr<Optional<UnveilMetadata>> {
|
|
auto path = TRY(KString::formatted("{}/{}", parent.path(), *it));
|
|
return UnveilMetadata(move(path), parent.permissions(), false);
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
VERIFY(locked_unveil_data.state != VeilState::Locked);
|
|
locked_unveil_data.state = VeilState::Dropped;
|
|
return {};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
ErrorOr<FlatPtr> Process::sys$unveil(Userspace<Syscall::SC_unveil_params const*> user_params)
|
|
{
|
|
VERIFY_NO_PROCESS_BIG_LOCK(this);
|
|
auto params = TRY(copy_typed_from_user(user_params));
|
|
|
|
if (!params.path.characters && !params.permissions.characters) {
|
|
m_unveil_data.with([&](auto& unveil_data) { unveil_data.state = VeilState::Locked; });
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (!((params.flags & to_underlying(UnveilFlags::CurrentProgram)) || (params.flags & to_underlying(UnveilFlags::AfterExec))))
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
// Note: If we inherited a locked state, then silently ignore the unveil request,
|
|
// and let the user program potentially deal with an ENOENT error later on.
|
|
if ((params.flags & static_cast<unsigned>(UnveilFlags::CurrentProgram)) && veil_state() == VeilState::LockedInherited)
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
// Note: We only lock the unveil state for current program, while allowing adding
|
|
// indefinitely unveil data before doing the actual exec().
|
|
if ((params.flags & static_cast<unsigned>(UnveilFlags::CurrentProgram)) && veil_state() == VeilState::Locked)
|
|
return EPERM;
|
|
|
|
if (!params.path.characters || !params.permissions.characters)
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
auto path = TRY(get_syscall_path_argument(params.path));
|
|
|
|
if (path->is_empty() || !path->view().starts_with('/'))
|
|
return EINVAL;
|
|
|
|
auto permissions = TRY(get_syscall_string_fixed_buffer<5>(params.permissions));
|
|
|
|
// Let's work out permissions first...
|
|
unsigned new_permissions = 0;
|
|
for (char const permission : permissions.representable_view()) {
|
|
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
|
|
OwnPtr<KString> new_unveiled_path;
|
|
auto custody_or_error = VirtualFileSystem::the().resolve_path_without_veil(credentials(), path->view(), VirtualFileSystem::the().root_custody(), &parent_custody);
|
|
if (!custody_or_error.is_error()) {
|
|
new_unveiled_path = TRY(custody_or_error.value()->try_serialize_absolute_path());
|
|
} else if (custody_or_error.error().code() == ENOENT && parent_custody && (new_permissions & UnveilAccess::CreateOrRemove)) {
|
|
auto parent_custody_path = TRY(parent_custody->try_serialize_absolute_path());
|
|
new_unveiled_path = TRY(KLexicalPath::try_join(parent_custody_path->view(), KLexicalPath::basename(path->view())));
|
|
} else {
|
|
// FIXME Should this be EINVAL?
|
|
return custody_or_error.release_error();
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (params.flags & static_cast<unsigned>(UnveilFlags::CurrentProgram)) {
|
|
TRY(unveil_data().with([&](auto& data) -> ErrorOr<void> {
|
|
TRY(update_unveil_data(data, new_unveiled_path->view(), static_cast<UnveilAccess>(new_permissions)));
|
|
return {};
|
|
}));
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if (params.flags & static_cast<unsigned>(UnveilFlags::AfterExec)) {
|
|
TRY(exec_unveil_data().with([&](auto& data) -> ErrorOr<void> {
|
|
// Note: The only valid way to get into this state is by using unveil before doing
|
|
// an actual exec with the UnveilFlags::AfterExec flag. Then this state is applied on
|
|
// the actual new program unveil data, and never on the m_exec_unveil_data.
|
|
VERIFY(data.state != VeilState::LockedInherited);
|
|
TRY(update_unveil_data(data, new_unveiled_path->view(), static_cast<UnveilAccess>(new_permissions)));
|
|
return {};
|
|
}));
|
|
}
|
|
return 0;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|