Date:	Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:16:17 -0800
From:	Nikhilesh Reddy <reddyn@...eaurora.org>
To:	Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>
CC:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, jack@...e.cz,
	Antonio SJ Musumeci <trapexit@...wn.link>, sven.utcke@....de,
	Nikolaus Rath <nikolaus@...h.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannhorn@...glemail.com>,
	Mike Shal <marfey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] fuse: Add support for passthrough read/write

On 02/03/2016 11:53 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:05:57AM -0800, Nikhilesh Reddy wrote:
>> Hi
>> Thanks for your review again :)
>>>
>>> Uh... how do you know at this point that the file is actually writable?
>>> Normally, e.g. vfs_write() will ensure that the file is writable, and
>>> e.g. generic_file_write_iter() won't check for writability as far as I
>>> can tell. This might allow someone to use the passthrough mechanism to
>>> overwrite a file he is only allowed to read, but not write, like
>>> /etc/passwd.
>>
>> I considered adding the checks ( the same ones that VFS does)  but not sure
>> if we need to.
>> So the user will need to construct a fuse filesystem ( that opens for
>> O_READONLY even though the user asks for a O_RDWR from the FUSE open) and
>> then mount it , with CAP_SYS_ADMIN  for which you need to be root but  once
>> he has that he should be able to easily get to the files without needing to
>> go through FUSE  right using CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE?
>>
>> Am i missing something? Please do help me understand.
>>
>> But yes if really needed I can add additional checks once i understand it
>
> On most Linux desktop systems, and on many servers, the userland "fuse"
> package is installed, which ships with a setuid root helper "fusermount":
>
> $ ls -l /bin/fusermount
> -rwsr-xr-x 1 root root 30800 May 21  2015 /bin/fusermount
>
> This setuid helper allows any user to mount FUSE filesystems anywhere he
> wants. This works as follows: main() calls mount_fuse(), which opens
> /dev/fuse by calling open_fuse_device(). mount_fuse() then makes sure
> that the caller has write access to the directory he is about to mount
> over using check_perm(), then calls mount() via do_mount(). mount_fuse()
> returns the /dev/fuse fd, which is then sent to the invoker of fusermount
> through a unix domain socket.
>
> (What the setuid binary does control are the mount options; those are
> used to enforce that the user can't mount filesystems that are
> accessible for other users.)
>
> Note that at no point, any data is sent to or read from the FUSE control
> fd by fusermount. Therefore, the init reply that is processed in
> process_init_reply() and determines whether passthrough will be enabled
> is controlled by the unprivileged caller.
>
> This fusermount mechanism is used by pseudo-filesystems like sshfs in
> order to allow unprivileged users to use them.
>
> fusermount aside, there is also an (as far as I know) pending patch with
> the intent to make FUSE usable in user namespaces, which is going to
> allow unprivileged users to mount FUSE filesystems even without a
> userspace helper: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/2/472
>
> (Note that this is very different from CUSE, which by design must never
> be exposed to non-root code.)

Thanks for the explanation ..I am convinced :)
  will add the checks when i send out the next version ( Probably by end 
of the week.. hopefully will be the last version :) :) )

Something on the lines of
if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE))
	return -EBADF;
if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_CAN_WRITE))
	return -EINVAL;

And
if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_READ))
	return -EBADF;
if (!(file->f_mode & FMODE_CAN_READ))
	return -EINVAL;
	

>
>>> Also, I think this might bypass mandatory locks, the
>>> security_file_permission hook (which seems like a bad idea anyway
>>> though), inotify/fsnotify and sb_start_write.
>>>
>> Can you please elaborate/clarify further? I am am not sure what you mean.

Can you please also explain what you meant by :
"might bypass mandatory locks, the security_file_permission hook (which 
seems like a bad idea anyway though), inotify/fsnotify and sb_start_write."
-- 
Thanks
Nikhilesh Reddy

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists