Message-ID: <20190613233706.6k6struu7valxaxy@brauner.io>
Date:   Fri, 14 Jun 2019 01:37:07 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Regression for MS_MOVE on kernel v5.1

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 04:59:24PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 8:35 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 06:00:39PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The commit changes the internal logic to lock mounts when propagating
> >> >> > mounts (user+)mount namespaces and - I believe - causes do_mount_move()
> >> >> > to fail at:
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean 'do_move_mount()'.
> >> >>
> >> >> > if (old->mnt.mnt_flags & MNT_LOCKED)
> >> >> >         goto out;
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If that's indeed the case we should either revert this commit (reverts
> >> >> > cleanly, just tested it) or find a fix.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm.. I'm not entirely sure of the logic here, and just looking at
> >> >> that commit 3bd045cc9c4b ("separate copying and locking mount tree on
> >> >> cross-userns copies") doesn't make me go "Ahh" either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Al? My gut feel is that we need to just revert, since this was in 5.1
> >> >> and it's getting reasonably late in 5.2 too. But maybe you go "guys,
> >> >> don't be silly, this is easily fixed with this one-liner".
> >> >
> >> > David and I have been staring at that code today for a while together.
> >> > I think I made some sense of it.
> >> > One thing we weren't absolutely sure is if the old MS_MOVE behavior was
> >> > intentional or a bug. If it is a bug we have a problem since we quite
> >> > heavily rely on this...
> >>
> >> It was intentional.
> >>
> >> The only mounts that are locked in propagation are the mounts that
> >> propagate together.  If you see the mounts come in as individuals you
> >> can always see/manipulate/work with the underlying mount.
> >>
> >> I can think of only a few ways for MNT_LOCKED to become set:
> >> a) unshare(CLONE_NEWNS)
> >> b) mount --rclone /path/to/mnt/tree /path/to/propagation/point
> >> c) mount --move /path/to/mnt/tree /path/to/propgation/point
> >>
> >> Nothing in the target namespace should be locked on the propgation point
> >> but all of the new mounts that came across as a unit should be locked
> >> together.
> >
> > Locked together means the root of the new mount tree doesn't have
> > MNT_LOCKED set, but all mounts below do have MNT_LOCKED, right?
> >
> > Isn't the bug here that the root mount gets MNT_LOCKED as well?

Yes, we suspected this as well. We just couldn't pinpoint where the
surgery would need to start.

> 
> Yes, and the code to remove MNT_LOCKED is still sitting there in
> propogate_one right after it calls copy_tree.  It should be a trivial
> matter of moving that change to after the lock_mnt_tree call.
> 
> Now that I have been elightened about anonymous mount namespaces
> I am suspecting that we want to take the user_namespace of the anonymous
> namespace into account when deciding to lock the mounts.
> 
> >> Then it breaking is definitely a regression that needs to be fixed.
> >>
> >> I believe the problematic change as made because the new mount
> >> api allows attaching floating mounts.  Or that was the plan last I
> >> looked.   Those floating mounts don't have a mnt_ns so will result
> >> in a NULL pointer dereference when they are attached.
> >
> > Well, it's called anonymous namespace.  So there *is* an mnt_ns, and
> > its lifetime is bound to the file returned by fsmount().
> 
> Interesting.  That has changed since I last saw the patches.
> 
> Below is what will probably be a straight forward fix for the regression.

Tested the patch just now applied on top of v5.1. It fixes the
regression.
Can you please send a proper patch, Eric?

Tested-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>

> 
> Eric
> 
> diff --git a/fs/namespace.c b/fs/namespace.c
> index ffb13f0562b0..a39edeecbc46 100644
> --- a/fs/namespace.c
> +++ b/fs/namespace.c
> @@ -2105,6 +2105,7 @@ static int attach_recursive_mnt(struct mount *source_mnt,
>                 /* Notice when we are propagating across user namespaces */
>                 if (child->mnt_parent->mnt_ns->user_ns != user_ns)
>                         lock_mnt_tree(child);
> +               child->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_LOCKED;
>                 commit_tree(child);
>         }
>         put_mountpoint(smp);
> diff --git a/fs/pnode.c b/fs/pnode.c
> index 7ea6cfb65077..012be405fec0 100644
> --- a/fs/pnode.c
> +++ b/fs/pnode.c
> @@ -262,7 +262,6 @@ static int propagate_one(struct mount *m)
>         child = copy_tree(last_source, last_source->mnt.mnt_root, type);
>         if (IS_ERR(child))
>                 return PTR_ERR(child);
> -       child->mnt.mnt_flags &= ~MNT_LOCKED;
>         mnt_set_mountpoint(m, mp, child);
>         last_dest = m;
>         last_source = child;
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists