linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: prevent copy_file

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: <87blckj75z.fsf@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:42:32 +0000
From:   Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.de>
To:     Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        "drinkcat@...omium.org" <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        "iant@...gle.com" <iant@...gle.com>,
        "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        "anna.schumaker@...app.com" <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
        "llozano@...omium.org" <llozano@...omium.org>,
        "linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "miklos@...redi.hu" <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        "viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        "dchinner@...hat.com" <dchinner@...hat.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "sfrench@...ba.org" <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfs: prevent copy_file_range to copy across devices

Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> writes:

>> Ugh.  And I guess overlayfs may have a similar problem.
>
> Not exactly.
> Generally speaking, overlayfs should call vfs_copy_file_range()
> with the flags it got from layer above, so if called from nfsd it
> will allow cross fs copy and when called from syscall it won't.
>
> There are some corner cases where overlayfs could benefit from
> COPY_FILE_SPLICE (e.g. copy from lower file to upper file), but
> let's leave those for now. Just leave overlayfs code as is.

Got it, thanks for clarifying.

>> > This is easy to solve with a flag COPY_FILE_SPLICE (or something) that
>> > is internal to kernel users.
>> >
>> > FWIW, you may want to look at the loop in ovl_copy_up_data()
>> > for improvements to nfsd_copy_file_range().
>> >
>> > We can move the check out to copy_file_range syscall:
>> >
>> >         if (flags != 0)
>> >                 return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> > Leave the fallback from all filesystems and check for the
>> > COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag inside generic_copy_file_range().
>>
>> Ok, the diff bellow is just to make sure I understood your suggestion.
>>
>> The patch will also need to:
>>
>>  - change nfs and overlayfs calls to vfs_copy_file_range() so that they
>>    use the new flag.
>>
>>  - check flags in generic_copy_file_checks() to make sure only valid flags
>>    are used (COPY_FILE_SPLICE at the moment).
>>
>> Also, where should this flag be defined?  include/uapi/linux/fs.h?
>
> Grep for REMAP_FILE_
> Same header file, same Documentation rst file.
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Luis
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
>> index 75f764b43418..341d315d2a96 100644
>> --- a/fs/read_write.c
>> +++ b/fs/read_write.c
>> @@ -1383,6 +1383,13 @@ ssize_t generic_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>>                                 struct file *file_out, loff_t pos_out,
>>                                 size_t len, unsigned int flags)
>>  {
>> +       if (!(flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)) {
>> +               if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range)
>> +                       return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +               else if (file_out->f_op->copy_file_range !=
>> +                        file_in->f_op->copy_file_range)
>> +                       return -EXDEV;
>> +       }
>
> That looks strange, because you are duplicating the logic in
> do_copy_file_range(). Maybe better:
>
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & ~COPY_FILE_SPLICE))
>         return -EINVAL;
> if (flags & COPY_FILE_SPLICE)
>        return do_splice_direct(file_in, &pos_in, file_out, &pos_out,
>                                  len > MAX_RW_COUNT ? MAX_RW_COUNT : len, 0);

My initial reasoning for duplicating the logic in do_copy_file_range() was
to allow the generic_copy_file_range() callers to be left unmodified and
allow the filesystems to default to this implementation.

With this change, I guess that the calls to generic_copy_file_range() from
the different filesystems can be dropped, as in my initial patch, as they
will always get -EINVAL.  The other option would be to set the
COPY_FILE_SPLICE flag in those calls, but that would get us back to the
problem we're trying to solve.

> if (!file_out->f_op->copy_file_range)
>         return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> return -EXDEV;
>
>>  }
>> @@ -1474,9 +1481,6 @@ ssize_t vfs_copy_file_range(struct file *file_in, loff_t pos_in,
>>  {
>>         ssize_t ret;
>>
>> -       if (flags != 0)
>> -               return -EINVAL;
>> -
>
> This needs to move to the beginning of SYSCALL_DEFINE6(copy_file_range,...

Yep, I didn't included that change in my diff as I wasn't sure if you'd
like to have the flag visible in userspace.

Anyway, thanks for your patience!

Cheers,
-- 
Luis