linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/17] VFS: Filesystem information and notifications [ver #17]

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]

Message-ID: <1582644535.3361.8.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 07:28:55 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] VFS: Filesystem information and notifications
 [ver #17]

On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 12:13 +0000, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 24/02/2020 15:28, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:55 PM James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Once it's table driven, certainly a sysfs directory becomes
> > > possible. The problem with ST_DEV is filesystems like btrfs and
> > > xfs that may have multiple devices.
> > 
> > For XFS there's always  a single sb->s_dev though, that's what
> > st_dev will be set to on all files.
> > 
> > Btrfs subvolume is sort of a lightweight superblock, so basically
> > all such st_dev's are aliases of the same master superblock.  So
> > lookup of all subvolume st_dev's could result in referencing the
> > same underlying struct super_block (just like /proc/$PID will
> > reference the same underlying task group regardless of which of the
> > task group member's PID is used).
> > 
> > Having this info in sysfs would spare us a number of issues that a
> > set of new syscalls would bring.  The question is, would that be
> > enough, or is there a reason that sysfs can't be used to present
> > the various filesystem related information that fsinfo is supposed
> > to present?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Miklos
> > 
> 
> We need a unique id for superblocks anyway. I had wondered about
> using s_dev some time back, but for the reasons mentioned earlier in
> this thread I think it might just land up being confusing and
> difficult to manage. While fake s_devs are created for sbs that don't
> have a device, I can't help thinking that something closer to
> ifindex, but for superblocks, is needed here. That would avoid the
> issue of which device number to use.
> 
> In fact we need that anyway for the notifications, since without
> that  there is a race that can lead to missing remounts of the same
> device, in  case a umount/mount pair is missed due to an overrun, and
> then fsinfo returns the same device as before, with potentially the
> same mount options too. So I think a unique id for a superblock is a
> generically useful feature, which would also allow for sensible sysfs
> directory naming, if required,

But would this be informative and useful for the user?  I'm sure we can
find a persistent id for a persistent superblock, but what about tmpfs
... that's going to have to change with every reboot.  It's going to be
remarkably inconvenient if I want to get fsinfo on /run to have to keep
finding what the id is.

The other thing a file descriptor does that sysfs doesn't is that it
solves the information leak: if I'm in a mount namespace that has no
access to certain mounts, I can't fspick them and thus I can't see the
information.  By default, with sysfs I can.

James