[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1480962075.2544.30.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 13:21:15 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: FUSE: regression when clearing setuid bits on chown
Hi Miklos,
I think we've found a "regression" that has crept in due to this patch:
commit a09f99eddef44035ec764075a37bace8181bec38
Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Date: Sat Oct 1 07:32:32 2016 +0200
fuse: fix killing s[ug]id in setattr
Basically, the pjdfstests set the ownership of a file to 06555, and then
chowns it (as root) to a new uid/gid. Prior to the patch above, fuse
would send down a setattr with both the uid/gid change and a new mode.
Now, it just sends down the uid/gid change.
Technically this is NOTABUG, since POSIX doesn't _require_ that we clear
these bits for a privileged process, but Linux (wisely) has done that
and I think we don't want to change that behavior here.
So, the issue I think is the use of should_remove_suid, which will
always return 0 when the process has CAP_FSETID. That's appropriate (I
think) for write/truncate, but not chown, where we want to ignore that.
Thoughts on the right fix here? A simple fix would be to add an
"override" bool to should_remove_suid, but maybe there's some more
elegant way to do it?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists