linux-kernel - Re: Questions re the new mount

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: <37a0c459-86f7-9686-4ae5-03316198d1cc@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:32:09 +0200
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, Alejandro Colomar <alx.manpages@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Questions re the new mount_setattr(2) manual page

Hi Christian,

[...]

Thanks for checking the various wordinfs.

[...]

>>>>>>>           int fd_tree = open_tree(-EBADF, source,
>>>>>>>                        OPEN_TREE_CLONE | OPEN_TREE_CLOEXEC |
>>>>>>>                        AT_EMPTY_PATH | (recursive ? AT_RECURSIVE : 0));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ???
>>>>>> What is the significance of -EBADF here? As far as I can tell, it
>>>>>> is not meaningful to open_tree()?
>>>>>
>>>>> I always pass -EBADF for similar reasons to [2]. Feel free to just use -1.
>>>>
>>>> ????
>>>> But here, both -EBADF and -1 seem to be wrong. This argument 
>>>> is a dirfd, and so should either be a file descriptor or the
>>>> value AT_FDCWD, right?
>>>
>>> [1]: In this code "source" is expected to be absolute. If it's not
>>>      absolute we should fail. This can be achieved by passing -1/-EBADF,
>>>      afaict.
>>
>> D'oh! Okay. I hadn't considered that use case for an invalid dirfd.
>> (And now I've done some adjustments to openat(2),which contains a
>> rationale for the *at() functions.)
>>
>> So, now I understand your purpose, but still the code is obscure,
>> since
>>
>> * You use a magic value (-EBADF) rather than (say) -1.
>> * There's no explanation (comment about) of the fact that you want
>>   to prevent relative pathnames.
>>
>> So, I've changed the code to use -1, not -EBADF, and I've added some
>> comments to explain that the intent is to prevent relative pathnames.
>> Okay?
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>>
>> But, there is still the meta question: what's the problem with using
>> a relative pathname?
> 
> Nothing per se. Ok, you asked so it's your fault:
> When writing programs I like to never use relative paths with AT_FDCWD
> because. Because making assumptions about the current working directory
> of the calling process is just too easy to get wrong; especially when
> pivot_root() or chroot() are in play.
> My absolut preference (joke intended) is to open a well-known starting
> point with an absolute path to get a dirfd and then scope all future
> operations beneath that dirfd. This already works with old-style
> openat() and _very_ cautious programming but openat2() and its
> resolve-flag space have made this **chef's kiss**.
> If I can't operate based on a well-known dirfd I use absolute paths with
> a -EBADF dirfd passed to *at() functions.

Thanks for the clarification. I've noted your rationale in a 
comment in the manual page source so that future maintainers 
will not be puzzled!

Cheers,

Michael



-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/