linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE

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:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 11:35:03 -0700
From:   Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>, jlayton@...hat.com,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ralph Böhme <slow@...ba.org>,
        Volker Lendecke <vl@...net.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] VFS: Add additional RESOLVE_* flags [ver #18]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:28:44PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 08:59:01PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > On 2020-03-12, Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> wrote:
> > > Am 12.03.20 um 17:24 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > > > But yes, if we have a major package like samba use it, then by all
> > > > means let's add linkat2(). How many things are we talking about? We
> > > > have a number of system calls that do *not* take flags, but do do
> > > > pathname walking. I'm thinking things like "mkdirat()"?)
> > > 
> > > I haven't looked them up in detail yet.
> > > Jeremy can you provide a list?
> > > 
> > > Do you think we could route some of them like mkdirat() and mknodat()
> > > via openat2() instead of creating new syscalls?
> > 
> > I have heard some folks asking for a way to create a directory and get a
> > handle to it atomically -- so arguably this is something that could be
> > inside openat2()'s feature set (O_MKDIR?). But I'm not sure how popular
> > of an idea this is.
> 
> For fuck sake, *NO*!
> 
> We don't need any more multiplexors from hell.  mkdir() and open() have
> deeply different interpretation of pathnames (and anyone who asks for
> e.g. traversals of dangling symlinks on mkdir() is insane).  Don't try to
> mix those; even O_TMPFILE had been a mistake.
> 
> Folks, we'd paid very dearly for the atomic_open() merge.  We are _still_
> paying for it - and keep finding bugs induced by the convoluted horrors
> in that thing (see yesterday pull from vfs.git#fixes for the latest crop).
> I hope to get into more or less sane shape (part - this cycle, with
> followups in the next one), but the last thing we need is more complexity
> in the area.

Can we disentangle the laudable desire to keep kernel internals
simple (which I completely agree with :-) from the desire to
keep user-space interfaces simple ?

Having some way of doing a mkdir() that returns an open fd
on the new directory *is* a very useful thing for many applications,
but I really don't care how the kernel implements it. We have so much
Linux-specific code already that one more thing won't matter :-).