linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/coredump: open coredump file in O_WRONLY instead of O

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:   Tue, 16 May 2023 11:05:10 +0300
From:   Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsementsov@...dex-team.ru>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ptikhomirov@...tuozzo.com, Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@...dex-team.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/coredump: open coredump file in O_WRONLY instead of
 O_RDWR

On 15.05.23 22:13, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 11:50 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> It's strange, because the "O_WRONLY" -> "2" change that changes to a
>> magic raw number is right next to changing "(unsigned short) 0x10" to
>> "KERNEL_DS", so we're getting *rid* of a magic raw number there.
> 
> Oh, no, never mind. I see what is going on.
> 
> Back then, "open_namei()" didn't actually take O_RDWR style flags AT ALL.
> 
> The O_RDONLY flags are broken, because you cannot say "open with no
> permissions", which we used internally. You have
> 
>   0 - read-only
>   1 - write-only
>   2 - read-write
> 
> but the internal code actually wants to match that up with the
> read-write permission bits (FMODE_READ etc).
> 
> And then we've long had a special value for "open for special
> accesses" (format etc), which (naturally) was 3.
> 
> So then the open code would do
> 
>          f->f_flags = flag = flags;
>          f->f_mode = (flag+1) & O_ACCMODE;
>          if (f->f_mode)
>                  flag++;
> 
> which means that "f_mode" now becomes that FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE
> mask, and "flag" ends up being a translation from that O_RDWR space
> (0/1/2/3) into the FMODE_READ/WRITE space (1/2/3/3, where "special"
> required read-write permissions, and 0 was only used for symlinks).
> 
> We still have that, although the code looks different.
> 
> So back then, "open_namei()" took that FMODE_READ/WRITE flag as an
> argument, and the  "O_WRONLY" -> "2" change is actually a bugfix and
> makes sense. The O_WRONLY thing was wrong, because it was 1, which
> actuall ymeant FMODE_READ.
> 
> And back then, we didn't *have* FMODE_READ and FMODE_WRITE.
> 
> So just writing it as "2" made sense, even if it was horrible. We
> added FMODE_WRITE later, but never fixed up those core file writers.
> 
> So that 0.99pl10 commit from 1993 is actually correct, and the bug
> happened *later*.
> 
> I think the real bug may have been in 2.2.4pre4 (February 16, 1999),
> when this happened:
> 
> -       dentry = open_namei(corefile,O_CREAT | 2 | O_TRUNC | O_NOFOLLOW, 0600);
> ...
> +       file = filp_open(corefile,O_CREAT | 2 | O_TRUNC | O_NOFOLLOW, 0600);
> 
> without realizing that the "2" in open_namei() should have become a
> O_WRONLY for filp_open().
> 
> So I think this explains it all.
> 
> Very understandable mistake after all.
> 
>                      Linus

Wow that's became a detective story, great thanks! [took note to check history myself next time]

-- 
Best regards,
Vladimir