[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113025941.GE26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 02:59:41 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Chanho Min <chanho.min@....com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 5/9] namei: LOOKUP_IN_ROOT: chroot-like scoped
resolution
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 01:44:14PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2019-11-13, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 08:05:49PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -2277,12 +2277,20 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> > >
> > > nd->m_seq = read_seqbegin(&mount_lock);
> > >
> > > - /* Figure out the starting path and root (if needed). */
> > > - if (*s == '/') {
> > > + /* Absolute pathname -- fetch the root. */
> > > + if (flags & LOOKUP_IN_ROOT) {
> > > + /* With LOOKUP_IN_ROOT, act as a relative path. */
> > > + while (*s == '/')
> > > + s++;
> >
> > Er... Why bother skipping slashes? I mean, not only link_path_walk()
> > will skip them just fine, you are actually risking breakage in this:
> > if (*s && unlikely(!d_can_lookup(dentry))) {
> > fdput(f);
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOTDIR);
> > }
> > which is downstream from there with you patch, AFAICS.
>
> I switched to stripping the slashes at your suggestion a few revisions
> ago[1], and had (wrongly) assumed we needed to handle "/" somehow in
> path_init(). But you're quite right about link_path_walk() -- and I'd be
> more than happy to drop it.
That, IIRC, was about untangling the weirdness around multiple calls of
dirfd_path_init() and basically went "we might want just strip the slashes
in case of that flag very early in the entire thing, so that later the
normal logics for absolute/relative would DTRT". Since your check is
right next to checking for absolute pathnames (and not in the very
beginning of path_init()), we might as well turn the check for
absolute pathname into *s == '/' && !(flags & LOOKUP_IN_ROOT) and be
done with that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists