linux-ext4 - Re: Why fstests g/673 and g/683~687 suddently fail (on xfs, ext4...) on latest linux v6.1+ ?

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]

Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxhmCgyorYVtD6=n=khqwUc=MPbZs+y=sqt09XbGoNm_tA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 18 Dec 2022 14:11:01 +0200
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
To:     Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, fstests@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Why fstests g/673 and g/683~687 suddently fail (on xfs, ext4...)
 on latest linux v6.1+ ?

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 1:06 PM Zorro Lang <zlang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> fstests generic/673 and generic/683~687 are a series of test cases to
> verify suid and sgid bits are dropped properly. xfs-list writes these
> cases to verify xfs behavior follows vfs, e.g. [1]. And these cases
> test passed on xfs and ext4 for long time. Even on my last regression
> test on linux v6.1-rc8+, they were passed too.
>
> But now the default behavior looks like be changed again, xfs and ext4
> start to fail [2] on latest linux v6.1+ (HEAD [0]), So there must be
> changed. I'd like to make sure what's changed, and if it's expected?

I think that is expected and I assume Christian was planning to fix the tests.

See Christian's pull request:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20221212112053.99208-1-brauner@kernel.org/

"Note, that some xfstests will now fail as these patches will cause the setgid
bit to be lost in certain conditions for unprivileged users modifying a setgid
file when they would've been kept otherwise. I think this risk is worth taking
and I explained and mentioned this multiple times on the list:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20221122142010.zchf2jz2oymx55qi@wittgenstein"

Thanks,
Amir.

>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>
> [0]
> commit f9ff5644bcc04221bae56f922122f2b7f5d24d62
> Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Date:   Sat Dec 17 08:55:19 2022 -0600
>
>     Merge tag 'hsi-for-6.2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sre/linux-h
>
> [1]
> commit e014f37db1a2d109afa750042ac4d69cf3e3d88e
> Author: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>
> Date:   Tue Mar 8 10:51:16 2022 -0800
>
>     xfs: use setattr_copy to set vfs inode attributes
>
> [2]
> FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/s390x ibm-z-510 6.1.0+ #1 SMP Sat Dec 17 13:23:59 EST 2022
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 -b size=1024 /dev/loop1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/fstests/SCRATCH_DIR
>
> generic/673       - output mismatch (see /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/673.out.bad)
>     --- tests/generic/673.out   2022-12-17 13:57:40.336589178 -0500
>     +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/673.out.bad  2022-12-18 00:00:53.627210256 -0500
>     @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@
>      310f146ce52077fcd3308dcbe7632bb2  SCRATCH_MNT/a
>      2666 -rw-rwSrw- SCRATCH_MNT/a
>      3784de23efab7a2074c9ec66901e39e5  SCRATCH_MNT/a
>     -2666 -rw-rwSrw- SCRATCH_MNT/a
>     +666 -rw-rw-rw- SCRATCH_MNT/a
>
>      Test 10 - qa_user, group-exec file, only sgid
>     ...
>     (Run 'diff -u /var/lib/xfstests/tests/generic/673.out /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/673.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
> Ran: generic/673
> Failures: generic/673
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
> FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/s390x ibm-z-510 6.1.0+ #1 SMP Sat Dec 17 13:23:59 EST 2022
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 -b size=1024 /dev/loop1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/fstests/SCRATCH_DIR
>
> generic/683       - output mismatch (see /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/683.out.bad)
>     --- tests/generic/683.out   2022-12-17 13:57:40.696589178 -0500
>     +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/683.out.bad  2022-12-18 00:04:55.297220255 -0500
>     @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>
>      Test 9 - qa_user, non-exec file falloc, only sgid
>      2666 -rw-rwSrw- TEST_DIR/683/a
>     -2666 -rw-rwSrw- TEST_DIR/683/a
>     +666 -rw-rw-rw- TEST_DIR/683/a
>
>      Test 10 - qa_user, group-exec file falloc, only sgid
>     ...
>     (Run 'diff -u /var/lib/xfstests/tests/generic/683.out /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/683.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
> Ran: generic/683
> Failures: generic/683
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
>
> FSTYP         -- xfs (debug)
> PLATFORM      -- Linux/s390x ibm-z-510 6.1.0+ #1 SMP Sat Dec 17 13:23:59 EST 2022
> MKFS_OPTIONS  -- -f -m crc=1,finobt=1,reflink=1,rmapbt=0,bigtime=1,inobtcount=1 -b size=1024 /dev/loop1
> MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o context=system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 /dev/loop1 /mnt/fstests/SCRATCH_DIR
>
> generic/684       - output mismatch (see /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/684.out.bad)
>     --- tests/generic/684.out   2022-12-17 13:57:40.766589178 -0500
>     +++ /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/684.out.bad  2022-12-18 00:05:27.597220255 -0500
>     @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
>
>      Test 9 - qa_user, non-exec file fpunch, only sgid
>      2666 -rw-rwSrw- TEST_DIR/684/a
>     -2666 -rw-rwSrw- TEST_DIR/684/a
>     +666 -rw-rw-rw- TEST_DIR/684/a
>
>      Test 10 - qa_user, group-exec file fpunch, only sgid
>     ...
>     (Run 'diff -u /var/lib/xfstests/tests/generic/684.out /var/lib/xfstests/results//generic/684.out.bad'  to see the entire diff)
> Ran: generic/684
> Failures: generic/684
> Failed 1 of 1 tests
> ....
> ....
>
>
> Thanks,
> Zorro
>