linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup + open/create

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: <YnvwiZ+s+y3VDUMW@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 13:21:13 -0400
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>,
        Dharmendra Hans <dharamhans87@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] FUSE: Implement atomic lookup + open/create

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 11:40:59AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 5 May 2022 at 21:59, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Oh, I have no issues with the intent. I will like to see cut in network
> > traffic too (if we can do this without introducing problems). My primary
> > interest is that this kind of change should benefit virtiofs as well.
> 
> One issue with that appears to be checking permissions.   AFAIU this
> patchset only enables the optimization if default_permissions is
> turned off (i.e. all permission checking is done by the server).  But
> virtiofs uses the default_permissions model.

IIUC, only 3rd patch mentions that default_permission should be turned
off. IOW, first patch where lookup + create + open is a single operation
and second patch which does "lookup + open" in a single operation does
not seem to require that default_permissions are not in effect.

So if first two patches work fine, I think virtiofs should benefit too.
(IMHO, 3rd patch is too hacky anyway)

W.r.t permission checks, looks like may_open() will finally be called
after ->atomic_open(). So even if we open the file, we should still be
able to check whether we have permissions to open the file or not
after the fact.

fs/namei.c

path_openat()
{
	open_last_lookups()  <--- This calls ->atomic_open()
	do_open()  <--- This calls may_open()
}

Thanks
Vivek

> 
> I'm not quite sure about this limitation, guessing that it's related
> to the fact that the permissions may be stale at the time of checking?
> 
> Thanks,
> Miklos
>