linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] apply: refuse touching a file beyond symlink

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:16:20 -0500
From:	Jeff King <peff@...f.net>
To:	Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
Cc:	Git Mailing List <git@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	twaugh@...hat.com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] apply: refuse touching a file beyond symlink

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:11:30PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I am not sure how to fix this, without completely ripping out the
> misguided "We should be able to concatenate outputs from multiple
> invocations of 'git diff' into a single file and apply the result
> with a single invocation of 'git apply'" change I grudgingly
> accepted long time ago (7a07841c (git-apply: handle a patch that
> touches the same path more than once better, 2008-06-27).
> 
> "git diff" output is designed each patch to apply independently to
> the preimage to produce the postimage, and that allows patches to
> two files can be swapped via -Oorderfile mechanism, and also "X was
> created by copying from Y and Y is modified in place" will result in
> X with the contents of Y in the preimage (i.e. before the in-place
> modification of Y in the same patch) regardless of the order of X
> and Y in the "git diff" output.  The above input used by t4114.11
> expects to remove 'foo/baz' (leaving an empty directory foo as an
> result but we do not track directories so it can be nuked to make
> room if other patch in the same input wants to put something else,
> either a regular file or a symbolic link, there) and create a blob
> at 'foo', and such an input should apply regardless of the order of
> patches in it.
> 
> The in_fn_table[] stuff broke that design completely.

I had the impression that we did not apply in any arbitrary order that
could work, but rather that we did deletions first followed by
additions. But I am fairly ignorant of the apply code.

If that assumption is correct, then I think we could just follow the
same phases that the actual application does. Here's a hacky version
below. Probably the check of phase versus is_delete needs to be better
(and ideally the logic would be factored out of write_one_result so they
always match).

diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c
index f5491cd..85364b8 100644
--- a/builtin/apply.c
+++ b/builtin/apply.c
@@ -3593,7 +3593,7 @@ symlink_found:
  * Check and apply the patch in-core; leave the result in patch->result
  * for the caller to write it out to the final destination.
  */
-static int check_patch(struct patch *patch)
+static int check_patch(struct patch *patch, int phase)
 {
 	struct stat st;
 	const char *old_name = patch->old_name;
@@ -3604,6 +3604,9 @@ static int check_patch(struct patch *patch)
 	int ok_if_exists;
 	int status;
 
+	if (!phase != patch->is_delete)
+		return 0;
+
 	patch->rejected = 1; /* we will drop this after we succeed */
 
 	status = check_preimage(patch, &ce, &st);
@@ -3679,6 +3682,9 @@ static int check_patch(struct patch *patch)
 	if (!patch->is_delete && path_is_beyond_symlink(patch->new_name))
 		return error(_("affected file '%s' is beyond a symbolic link"),
 			     patch->new_name);
+	if (patch->is_delete && path_is_beyond_symlink(patch->old_name))
+		return error(_("affected file '%s' is beyond a symbolic link"),
+			     patch->old_name);
 
 	if (apply_data(patch, &st, ce) < 0)
 		return error(_("%s: patch does not apply"), name);
@@ -3686,7 +3692,7 @@ static int check_patch(struct patch *patch)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int check_patch_list(struct patch *patch)
+static int check_patch_list_1(struct patch *patch, int phase)
 {
 	int err = 0;
 
@@ -3695,12 +3701,22 @@ static int check_patch_list(struct patch *patch)
 		if (apply_verbosely)
 			say_patch_name(stderr,
 				       _("Checking patch %s..."), patch);
-		err |= check_patch(patch);
+		err |= check_patch(patch, phase);
 		patch = patch->next;
 	}
 	return err;
 }
 
+static int check_patch_list(struct patch *patch)
+{
+	int err = 0;
+	int phase;
+
+	for (phase = 0; phase < 2; phase++)
+		err |= check_patch_list_1(patch, phase);
+	return err;
+}
+
 /* This function tries to read the sha1 from the current index */
 static int get_current_sha1(const char *path, unsigned char *sha1)
 {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/