many: rename prompt remaining permissions to outstanding permissions

Signed-off-by: Oliver Calder <[email protected]>

interfaces/prompting/requestprompts/export_test.go

@@ -33,12 +33,12 @@ const (
 	MaxOutstandingPromptsPerUser = maxOutstandingPromptsPerUser
 )
 
-func NewPrompt(id prompting.IDType, timestamp time.Time, snap string, iface string, path string, remainingPermissions []string, availablePermissions []string, originalPermissions []string) *Prompt {
+func NewPrompt(id prompting.IDType, timestamp time.Time, snap string, iface string, path string, outstandingPermissions []string, availablePermissions []string, originalPermissions []string) *Prompt {
 	constraints := &promptConstraints{
-		path:                 path,
-		remainingPermissions: remainingPermissions,
-		availablePermissions: availablePermissions,
-		originalPermissions:  originalPermissions,
+		path:                   path,
+		outstandingPermissions: outstandingPermissions,
+		availablePermissions:   availablePermissions,
+		originalPermissions:    originalPermissions,
 	}
 	return &Prompt{
 		ID:           id,

interfaces/prompting/requestprompts/requestprompts.go

@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ type jsonPromptConstraints struct {
 func (p *Prompt) MarshalJSON() ([]byte, error) {
 	constraints := &jsonPromptConstraints{
 		Path:                 p.Constraints.path,
-		RequestedPermissions: p.Constraints.remainingPermissions,
+		RequestedPermissions: p.Constraints.outstandingPermissions,
 		AvailablePermissions: p.Constraints.availablePermissions,
 	}
 	toMarshal := &jsonPrompt{
@@ -109,10 +109,10 @@ func (p *Prompt) sendReply(outcome prompting.OutcomeType) error {
 	// If outcome is allow, then reply by allowing all originally-requested
 	// permissions. If outcome is deny, only allow permissions which were
 	// originally requested but have since been allowed by rules, and deny any
-	// remaining permissions.
+	// outstanding permissions.
 	var deniedPermissions []string
 	if !allow {
-		deniedPermissions = p.Constraints.remainingPermissions
+		deniedPermissions = p.Constraints.outstandingPermissions
 	}
 	allowedPermission := p.Constraints.buildResponse(p.Interface, deniedPermissions)
 	return p.sendReplyWithPermission(allowedPermission)
@@ -135,17 +135,17 @@ var sendReply = (*listener.Request).Reply
 
 // promptConstraints store the path which was requested, along with three
 // lists of permissions: the original permissions associated with the request,
-// the remaining unsatisfied permissions (as rules may satisfy some of the
+// the outstanding unsatisfied permissions (as rules may satisfy some of the
 // permissions from a prompt before the prompt is fully resolved), and the
 // available permissions for the interface associated with the prompt, so that
 // the client may reply with a broader set of permissions than was originally
 // requested.
 type promptConstraints struct {
 	// path is the path to which the application is requesting access.
 	path string
-	// remainingPermissions are the remaining unsatisfied permissions for which
-	// the application is requesting access.
-	remainingPermissions []string
+	// outstandingPermissions are the outstanding unsatisfied permissions for
+	// which the application is requesting access.
+	outstandingPermissions []string
 	// availablePermissions are the permissions which are supported by the
 	// interface associated with the prompt to which the constraints apply.
 	availablePermissions []string
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ func (pc *promptConstraints) equals(other *promptConstraints) bool {
 	return true
 }
 
-// applyRuleConstraints modifies the prompt constraints, removing any remaining
+// applyRuleConstraints modifies the prompt constraints, removing any outstanding
 // permissions which are matched by the given rule constraints.
 //
 // Returns whether the prompt constraints were affected by the rule constraints,
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ func (pc *promptConstraints) equals(other *promptConstraints) bool {
 // other return values can be ignored.
 //
 // If the path pattern does not match the prompt path, or the permissions in
-// the rule constraints do not include any of the remaining prompt permissions,
+// the rule constraints do not include any of the outstanding prompt permissions,
 // then affectedByRule is false, and no changes are made to the prompt
 // constraints.
 func (pc *promptConstraints) applyRuleConstraints(constraints *prompting.RuleConstraints) (affectedByRule, respond bool, deniedPermissions []string, err error) {
@@ -202,13 +202,13 @@ func (pc *promptConstraints) applyRuleConstraints(constraints *prompting.RuleCon
 
 	// Path pattern matched, now check if any permissions match
 
-	newRemainingPermissions := make([]string, 0, len(pc.remainingPermissions))
-	for _, perm := range pc.remainingPermissions {
+	newOutstandingPermissions := make([]string, 0, len(pc.outstandingPermissions))
+	for _, perm := range pc.outstandingPermissions {
 		entry, exists := constraints.Permissions[perm]
 		if !exists {
 			// Permission not covered by rule constraints, so permission
-			// should continue to be in remainingPermissions.
-			newRemainingPermissions = append(newRemainingPermissions, perm)
+			// should continue to be in outstandingPermissions.
+			newOutstandingPermissions = append(newOutstandingPermissions, perm)
 			continue
 		}
 		affectedByRule = true
@@ -227,9 +227,9 @@ func (pc *promptConstraints) applyRuleConstraints(constraints *prompting.RuleCon
 		return false, false, nil, nil
 	}
 
-	pc.remainingPermissions = newRemainingPermissions
+	pc.outstandingPermissions = newOutstandingPermissions
 
-	if len(pc.remainingPermissions) == 0 || len(deniedPermissions) > 0 {
+	if len(pc.outstandingPermissions) == 0 || len(deniedPermissions) > 0 {
 		// All permissions allowed or at least one permission denied, so tell
 		// the caller to send a response back to the kernel.
 		respond = true
@@ -269,10 +269,10 @@ func (pc *promptConstraints) Path() string {
 	return pc.path
 }
 
-// Permissions returns the remaining unsatisfied permissions associated with
-// the prompt.
-func (pc *promptConstraints) RemainingPermissions() []string {
-	return pc.remainingPermissions
+// OutstandingPermissions returns the outstanding unsatisfied permissions
+// associated with the prompt.
+func (pc *promptConstraints) OutstandingPermissions() []string {
+	return pc.outstandingPermissions
 }
 
 // userPromptDB maps prompt IDs to prompts for a single user.
@@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ var timeAfterFunc = func(d time.Duration, f func()) timeutil.Timer {
 //
 // The caller must ensure that the given permissions are in the order in which
 // they appear in the available permissions list for the given interface.
-func (pdb *PromptDB) AddOrMerge(metadata *prompting.Metadata, path string, requestedPermissions []string, remainingPermissions []string, listenerReq *listener.Request) (*Prompt, bool, error) {
+func (pdb *PromptDB) AddOrMerge(metadata *prompting.Metadata, path string, requestedPermissions []string, outstandingPermissions []string, listenerReq *listener.Request) (*Prompt, bool, error) {
 	availablePermissions, err := prompting.AvailablePermissions(metadata.Interface)
 	if err != nil {
 		// Error should be impossible, since caller has already validated that
@@ -464,10 +464,10 @@ func (pdb *PromptDB) AddOrMerge(metadata *prompting.Metadata, path string, reque
 	}
 
 	constraints := &promptConstraints{
-		path:                 path,
-		remainingPermissions: remainingPermissions,
-		availablePermissions: availablePermissions,
-		originalPermissions:  requestedPermissions,
+		path:                   path,
+		outstandingPermissions: outstandingPermissions,
+		availablePermissions:   availablePermissions,
+		originalPermissions:    requestedPermissions,
 	}
 
 	// Search for an identical existing prompt, merge if found
@@ -487,7 +487,7 @@ func (pdb *PromptDB) AddOrMerge(metadata *prompting.Metadata, path string, reque
 	if len(userEntry.prompts) >= maxOutstandingPromptsPerUser {
 		logger.Noticef("WARNING: too many outstanding prompts for user %d; auto-denying new one", metadata.User)
 		// Deny all permissions which are not already allowed by existing rules
-		allowedPermission := constraints.buildResponse(metadata.Interface, constraints.remainingPermissions)
+		allowedPermission := constraints.buildResponse(metadata.Interface, constraints.outstandingPermissions)
 		sendReply(listenerReq, allowedPermission)
 		return nil, false, prompting_errors.ErrTooManyPrompts
 	}
@@ -594,14 +594,14 @@ func (pdb *PromptDB) Reply(user uint32, id prompting.IDType, outcome prompting.O
 // contents and, if so, sends back a decision to their listener requests.
 //
 // A prompt is satisfied by the given rule contents if the user, snap,
-// interface, and path of the prompt match those of the rule, and all remaining
-// permissions are covered by permissions in the rule constraints or at least
-// one of the remaining permissions is covered by a permission which has an
-// outcome of "deny".
+// interface, and path of the prompt match those of the rule, and all
+// outstanding permissions are covered by permissions in the rule constraints
+// or at least one of the outstanding permissions is covered by a rule
+// permission which has an outcome of "deny".
 //
 // Records a notice for any prompt which was satisfied, or which had some of
 // its permissions satisfied by the rule contents. In the future, only the
-// remaining unsatisfied permissions of a partially-satisfied prompt must be
+// outstanding unsatisfied permissions of a partially-satisfied prompt must be
 // satisfied for the prompt as a whole to be satisfied.
 //
 // Returns the IDs of any prompts which were fully satisfied by the given rule
@@ -649,17 +649,18 @@ func (pdb *PromptDB) HandleNewRule(metadata *prompting.Metadata, constraints *pr
 		// back to the kernel, and record a notice that the prompt was satisfied.
 		if len(deniedPermissions) > 0 {
 			// At least one permission was denied by new rule, and we want to
-			// send a response immediately, so include any remaining
+			// send a response immediately, so include any outstanding
 			// permissions as denied as well.
 			//
 			// This could be done as part of applyRuleConstraints instead, but
 			// it seems semantically clearer to only return the permissions
 			// which were explicitly denied by the rule, rather than all
-			// remaining permissions because at least one was denied. It's the
-			// prorogative of the caller (this function) to treat the remaining
-			// permissions as denied since we want to send a response without
-			// waiting for future rules to satisfy the remaining permissions.
-			deniedPermissions = append(deniedPermissions, prompt.Constraints.remainingPermissions...)
+			// outstanding permissions because at least one was denied. It's
+			// the prorogative of the caller (this function) to treat the
+			// outstanding permissions as denied since we want to send a
+			// response without waiting for future rules to satisfy the
+			// outstanding permissions.
+			deniedPermissions = append(deniedPermissions, prompt.Constraints.outstandingPermissions...)
 		}
 		// Build and send a response with any permissions which were allowed,
 		// either by this new rule or by previous rules.

interfaces/prompting/requestprompts/requestprompts_test.go

@@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestAddOrMerge(c *C) {
 	c.Check(prompt1.Snap, Equals, metadata.Snap)
 	c.Check(prompt1.Interface, Equals, metadata.Interface)
 	c.Check(prompt1.Constraints.Path(), Equals, path)
-	c.Check(prompt1.Constraints.RemainingPermissions(), DeepEquals, permissions)
+	c.Check(prompt1.Constraints.OutstandingPermissions(), DeepEquals, permissions)
 
 	stored, err = pdb.Prompts(metadata.User, clientActivity)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
@@ -553,9 +553,9 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestReply(c *C) {
 				// Check that permissions in response map to prompt's permissions
 				abstractPermissions, err := prompting.AbstractPermissionsFromAppArmorPermissions(prompt1.Interface, allowedPermission)
 				c.Check(err, IsNil)
-				c.Check(abstractPermissions, DeepEquals, prompt1.Constraints.RemainingPermissions())
+				c.Check(abstractPermissions, DeepEquals, prompt1.Constraints.OutstandingPermissions())
 				// Check that prompt's permissions map to response's permissions
-				expectedPerm, err := prompting.AbstractPermissionsToAppArmorPermissions(prompt1.Interface, prompt1.Constraints.RemainingPermissions())
+				expectedPerm, err := prompting.AbstractPermissionsToAppArmorPermissions(prompt1.Interface, prompt1.Constraints.OutstandingPermissions())
 				c.Check(err, IsNil)
 				c.Check(allowedPermission, DeepEquals, expectedPerm)
 			} else {
@@ -695,7 +695,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestHandleNewRule(c *C) {
 	c.Check(promptIDListContains(satisfied, prompt1.ID), Equals, true)
 	c.Check(promptIDListContains(satisfied, prompt3.ID), Equals, true)
 
-	// Read permissions of prompt2 satisfied, but it has one remaining
+	// Read permissions of prompt2 satisfied, but it has one outstanding
 	// permission, so notice re-issued. prompt1 satisfied because at least
 	// one permission was denied, and prompt3 permissions fully satisfied.
 	e1 := &noticeInfo{promptID: prompt1.ID, data: map[string]string{"resolved": "satisfied"}}
@@ -1028,9 +1028,9 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptMarshalJSON(c *C) {
 	}
 	path := "/home/test/foo"
 	requestedPermissions := []string{"read", "write", "execute"}
-	remainingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
+	outstandingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
 
-	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, nil)
+	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, nil)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 
@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpiration(c *C) {
 	}
 	path := "/home/test/foo"
 	requestedPermissions := []string{"read", "write", "execute"}
-	remainingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
+	outstandingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
 
 	noticeChan := make(chan noticeInfo, 1)
 	pdb, err := requestprompts.New(func(userID uint32, promptID prompting.IDType, data map[string]string) error {
@@ -1090,7 +1090,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpiration(c *C) {
 
 	// Add prompt
 	listenerReq := &listener.Request{}
-	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, listenerReq)
+	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, listenerReq)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 	checkCurrentNotices(c, noticeChan, prompt.ID, nil)
@@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpiration(c *C) {
 	// Add another prompt, check that it does not bump the activity timeout
 	listenerReq = &listener.Request{}
 	otherPath := "/home/test/bar"
-	prompt2, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, otherPath, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, listenerReq)
+	prompt2, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, otherPath, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, listenerReq)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 	checkCurrentNotices(c, noticeChan, prompt2.ID, nil)
@@ -1120,7 +1120,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpiration(c *C) {
 
 	// Add prompt again
 	listenerReq = &listener.Request{}
-	prompt, merged, err = pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, listenerReq)
+	prompt, merged, err = pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, listenerReq)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 	checkCurrentNotices(c, noticeChan, prompt.ID, nil)
@@ -1160,7 +1160,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpiration(c *C) {
 
 	// Add prompt again
 	listenerReq = &listener.Request{}
-	prompt, merged, err = pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, listenerReq)
+	prompt, merged, err = pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, listenerReq)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 	checkCurrentNotices(c, noticeChan, prompt.ID, nil)
@@ -1220,7 +1220,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpirationRace(c *C) {
 	}
 	path := "/home/test/foo"
 	requestedPermissions := []string{"read", "write", "execute"}
-	remainingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
+	outstandingPermissions := []string{"write", "execute"}
 
 	noticeChan := make(chan noticeInfo, 1)
 	pdb, err := requestprompts.New(func(userID uint32, promptID prompting.IDType, data map[string]string) error {
@@ -1236,7 +1236,7 @@ func (s *requestpromptsSuite) TestPromptExpirationRace(c *C) {
 
 	// Add prompt
 	listenerReq := &listener.Request{}
-	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, remainingPermissions, listenerReq)
+	prompt, merged, err := pdb.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, requestedPermissions, outstandingPermissions, listenerReq)
 	c.Assert(err, IsNil)
 	c.Assert(merged, Equals, false)
 	checkCurrentNotices(c, noticeChan, prompt.ID, nil)

overlord/ifacestate/apparmorprompting/prompting.go

@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ func (m *InterfacesRequestsManager) handleListenerReq(req *listener.Request) err
 		return requestReply(req, nil)
 	}
 
-	remainingPerms := make([]string, 0, len(permissions))
+	outstandingPerms := make([]string, 0, len(permissions))
 	satisfiedPerms := make([]string, 0, len(permissions))
 
 	// we're done with early checks, serious business starts now, and we can
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ func (m *InterfacesRequestsManager) handleListenerReq(req *listener.Request) err
 				logger.Noticef("error while checking request against existing rules: %v", err)
 			}
 			// No matching rule found
-			remainingPerms = append(remainingPerms, perm)
+			outstandingPerms = append(outstandingPerms, perm)
 		}
 	}
 	if matchedDenyRule {
@@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ func (m *InterfacesRequestsManager) handleListenerReq(req *listener.Request) err
 		return requestReply(req, allowedPermission)
 	}
 
-	if len(remainingPerms) == 0 {
+	if len(outstandingPerms) == 0 {
 		logger.Debugf("request allowed by existing rule: %+v", req)
 
 		// We don't want to just send back req.Permission() here, since that
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ func (m *InterfacesRequestsManager) handleListenerReq(req *listener.Request) err
 		Interface: iface,
 	}
 
-	newPrompt, merged, err := m.prompts.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, permissions, remainingPerms, req)
+	newPrompt, merged, err := m.prompts.AddOrMerge(metadata, path, permissions, outstandingPerms, req)
 	if err != nil {
 		logger.Noticef("error while checking request against prompt DB: %v", err)
 
@@ -390,10 +390,10 @@ func (m *InterfacesRequestsManager) HandleReply(userID uint32, promptID promptin
 
 	// XXX: do we want to allow only replying to a select subset of permissions, and
 	// auto-deny the rest?
-	contained := constraints.ContainPermissions(prompt.Constraints.RemainingPermissions())
+	contained := constraints.ContainPermissions(prompt.Constraints.OutstandingPermissions())
 	if !contained {
 		return nil, &prompting_errors.RequestedPermissionsNotMatchedError{
-			Requested: prompt.Constraints.RemainingPermissions(),
+			Requested: prompt.Constraints.OutstandingPermissions(),
 			Replied:   replyConstraints.Permissions, // equivalent to keys of constraints.Permissions
 		}
 	}