linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/34] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #12]

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:   Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:45:01 +0100
From:   Alan Jenkins <alan.christopher.jenkins@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mszeredi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/34] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock
 for reconfiguration [ver #12]

On 13/10/2018 07:11, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:49:50PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
>>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fspick, int, dfd, const char __user *, path, unsigned int, flags)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct fs_context *fc;
>>> +	struct path target;
>>> +	unsigned int lookup_flags;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!ns_capable(current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>>> +		return -EPERM;
>>
>> This seems to accept basically any mount.  Specifically: are you sure it's
>> OK to return a handle to a SB_NO_USER superblock?
> Umm...  As long as we don't try to do pathname resolution from its ->s_root,
> shouldn't be a problem and I don't see anything that would do that.  I might've
> missed something, but...

Sorry, I guess SB_NOUSER was the wrong word.  I was trying find if 
anything stopped things like

int memfd = memfd_create("foo", 0);
int fsfd = fspick(memfd, "", FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH);

fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "ro", NULL, 0);
fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "size", "100M", 0);
fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE, NULL, NULL, 0);

So far I'm getting -EBUSY if I try to apply the "ro", -EINVAL if I try 
to apply the "size=100M".  But if I don't apply either, then 
FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE succeeds.

It seems worrying that it might let me set options on shm_mnt. Or at 
least letting me get as far as the -EBUSY check for the "ro" superblock 
flag.

I'm not sure why I'm getting the -EINVAL setting the "size" option.  But 
it would be much more reassuring if I was getting -EPERM :-).

Alan