linux-kernel - [ 77/82] vfs: Fix /proc/<tid>/fdinfo/<fd> file handling

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:	Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:04:53 +0900
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: [ 77/82] vfs: Fix /proc/<tid>/fdinfo/<fd> file handling

3.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>

commit 0640113be25d283e0ff77a9f041e1242182387f0 upstream.

Cyrill Gorcunov reports that I broke the fdinfo files with commit
30a08bf2d31d ("proc: move fd symlink i_mode calculations into
tid_fd_revalidate()"), and he's quite right.

The tid_fd_revalidate() function is not just used for the <tid>/fd
symlinks, it's also used for the <tid>/fdinfo/<fd> files, and the
permission model for those are different.

So do the dynamic symlink permission handling just for symlinks, making
the fdinfo files once more appear as the proper regular files they are.

Of course, Al Viro argued (probably correctly) that we shouldn't do the
symlink permission games at all, and make the symlinks always just be
the normal 'lrwxrwxrwx'.  That would have avoided this issue too, but
since somebody noticed that the permissions had changed (which was the
reason for that original commit 30a08bf2d31d in the first place), people
do apparently use this feature.

[ Basically, you can use the symlink permission data as a cheap "fdinfo"
  replacement, since you see whether the file is open for reading and/or
  writing by just looking at st_mode of the symlink.  So the feature
  does make sense, even if the pain it has caused means we probably
  shouldn't have done it to begin with. ]

Reported-and-tested-by: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/proc/base.c |   17 ++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/proc/base.c
+++ b/fs/proc/base.c
@@ -1803,7 +1803,7 @@ static int tid_fd_revalidate(struct dent
 			rcu_read_lock();
 			file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
 			if (file) {
-				unsigned i_mode, f_mode = file->f_mode;
+				unsigned f_mode = file->f_mode;

 				rcu_read_unlock();
 				put_files_struct(files);
@@ -1819,12 +1819,14 @@ static int tid_fd_revalidate(struct dent
 					inode->i_gid = 0;
 				}

-				i_mode = S_IFLNK;
-				if (f_mode & FMODE_READ)
-					i_mode |= S_IRUSR | S_IXUSR;
-				if (f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
-					i_mode |= S_IWUSR | S_IXUSR;
-				inode->i_mode = i_mode;
+				if (S_ISLNK(inode->i_mode)) {
+					unsigned i_mode = S_IFLNK;
+					if (f_mode & FMODE_READ)
+						i_mode |= S_IRUSR | S_IXUSR;
+					if (f_mode & FMODE_WRITE)
+						i_mode |= S_IWUSR | S_IXUSR;
+					inode->i_mode = i_mode;
+				}

 				security_task_to_inode(task, inode);
 				put_task_struct(task);
@@ -1859,6 +1861,7 @@ static struct dentry *proc_fd_instantiat
 	ei = PROC_I(inode);
 	ei->fd = fd;

+	inode->i_mode = S_IFLNK;
 	inode->i_op = &proc_pid_link_inode_operations;
 	inode->i_size = 64;
 	ei->op.proc_get_link = proc_fd_link;

--
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/