linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] File Sealing & memfd

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: <CANq1E4SGFoq1POtrP9DD91=3nbswELK9TH49_XkjE=Wwym4f+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:26:23 +0200
From:	David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To:	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Ryan Lortie <desrt@...rt.ca>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Lennart Poettering <lennart@...ttering.net>,
	Daniel Mack <zonque@...il.com>, Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] File Sealing & memfd_create()

Hi

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/17/2014 12:10 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>
>>>> The file might have holes, therefore, you'd have to allocate backing
>>>> pages. This might hit a soft-limit and fail. To avoid this, use
>>>> fallocate() to allocate pages prior to mmap()
>>>
>>>
>>> This does not work because the consuming side does not know how the
>>> descriptor was set up if sealing does not imply that.
>>
>>
>> The consuming side has to very seals via F_GET_SEALS. After that, it
>> shall do a simple fallocate() on the whole file if it wants to go sure
>> that all pages are allocated. Why shouldn't that be possible? Please
>> elaborate.
>
>
> Hmm.  You permit general fallocate even for WRITE seals.  That's really
> unexpected.

SEAL_WRITE prevents modifications of file-content. fallocate() does
not modify file-contents, so I think it's not unexpected that
fallocate() is still allowed.

> The inode_newsize_ok check in shmem_fallocate can result in SIGXFSZ, which
> doesn't seem to be what's intended here.

It can only result in SIGXFSZ if you _increase_ the file-size with
fallocate(). You shouldn't do that if you only verify that holes are
allocated. Hence, a simple fallocate(st.st_size) cannot result in
SIGXFSZ. Obviously, this requires SEAL_SHRINK to prevent the remote
site to shrink the file while you call fallocate(). But SEAL_WRITE
usually goes together with SEAL_SHRINK for obvious reasons.

> Will the new pages attributed to the process calling fallocate, or to the
> process calling memfd_create?

Pages are always allocated by the caller and charged on current->mm
(current process).

Thanks
David
--
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/