| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:51:56 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
ltp@...ts.linux.it, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] VFS: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when
->atomic_open used.
On Mon 17-06-24 16:49:55, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 4:07 PM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 17-06-24 15:09:09, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:37 PM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > > > On Sat 15-06-24 07:35:42, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:09:55 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > When a file is opened and created with open(..., O_CREAT) we get
> > > > > > both the CREATE and OPEN fsnotify events and would expect them in that
> > > > > > order. For most filesystems we get them in that order because
> > > > > > open_last_lookups() calls fsnofify_create() and then do_open() (from
> > > > > > path_openat()) calls vfs_open()->do_dentry_open() which calls
> > > > > > fsnotify_open().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > Applied to the vfs.fixes branch of the vfs/vfs.git tree.
> > > > > Patches in the vfs.fixes branch should appear in linux-next soon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please report any outstanding bugs that were missed during review in a
> > > > > new review to the original patch series allowing us to drop it.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's encouraged to provide Acked-bys and Reviewed-bys even though the
> > > > > patch has now been applied. If possible patch trailers will be updated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that commit hashes shown below are subject to change due to rebase,
> > > > > trailer updates or similar. If in doubt, please check the listed branch.
> > > > >
> > > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git
> > > > > branch: vfs.fixes
> > > > >
> > > > > [1/1] VFS: generate FS_CREATE before FS_OPEN when ->atomic_open used.
> > > > > https://git.kernel.org/vfs/vfs/c/7536b2f06724
> > > >
> > > > I have reviewed the patch you've committed since I wasn't quite sure which
> > > > changes you're going to apply after your discussion with Amir. And I have
> > > > two comments:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1085,8 +1080,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(file_path);
> > > > */
> > > > int vfs_open(const struct path *path, struct file *file)
> > > > {
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > file->f_path = *path;
> > > > - return do_dentry_open(file, NULL);
> > > > + ret = do_dentry_open(file, NULL);
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Once we return a file with FMODE_OPENED, __fput() will call
> > > > + * fsnotify_close(), so we need fsnotify_open() here for symmetry.
> > > > + */
> > > > + fsnotify_open(file);
> > >
> > > Please add { } around multi line indented text.
> > >
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT this will have a side-effect that now fsnotify_open() will be
> > > > generated even for O_PATH open. It is true that fsnotify_close() is getting
> > > > generated for them already and we should strive for symmetry. Conceptually
> > > > it doesn't make sense to me to generate fsnotify events for O_PATH
> > > > opens/closes but maybe I miss something. Amir, any opinion here?
> > >
> > > Good catch!
> > >
> > > I agree that we do not need OPEN nor CLOSE events for O_PATH.
> > > I suggest to solve it with:
> > >
> > > @@ -915,7 +929,7 @@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file *f,
> > > f->f_sb_err = file_sample_sb_err(f);
> > >
> > > if (unlikely(f->f_flags & O_PATH)) {
> > > - f->f_mode = FMODE_PATH | FMODE_OPENED;
> > > + f->f_mode = FMODE_PATH | FMODE_OPENED | __FMODE_NONOTIFY;
> > > f->f_op = &empty_fops;
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > First I was somewhat nervous about this as it results in returning O_PATH
> > fd with __FMODE_NONOTIFY to userspace and I was afraid it may influence
> > generation of events *somewhere*.
>
> It influences my POC code of future lookup permission event:
> https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fan_lookup_perm/
> which is supposed to generate events on lookup with O_PATH fd.
>
> > But checking a bit, we use 'file' for
> > generating only open, access, modify, and close events so yes, this should
> > be safe. Alternatively we could add explicit checks for !O_PATH when
> > generating open / close events.
> >
>
> So yeh, this would be better:
>
> --- a/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fsnotify.h
> @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ static inline int fsnotify_file(struct file *file,
> __u32 mask)
> {
> const struct path *path;
>
> - if (file->f_mode & FMODE_NONOTIFY)
> + if (file->f_mode & (FMODE_NONOTIFY | FMODE_PATH))
> return 0;
>
> path = &file->f_path;
> --
>
> It is a dilemma, if this patch should be separate.
> On the one hand it fixes unbalanced CLOSE events on O_PATH fd,
> so it is an independent fix.
> OTOH, it is a requirement for moving fsnotify_open() out of
> do_dentry_open(), so not so healthy to separate them, when it is less clear
> that they need to be backported together.
Yeah, I guess a separate patch would be better because it also needs a good
changelog explaining this.
> > > > @@ -3612,6 +3612,9 @@ static int do_open(struct nameidata *nd,
> > > > int acc_mode;
> > > > int error;
> > > >
> > > > + if (file->f_mode & FMODE_OPENED)
> > > > + fsnotify_open(file);
> > > > +
> > > > if (!(file->f_mode & (FMODE_OPENED | FMODE_CREATED))) {
> > > > error = complete_walk(nd);
> > > > if (error)
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, this works but looks as an odd place to put this notification to.
> > > > Why not just placing it just next to where fsnotify_create() is generated
> > > > in open_last_lookups()? Like:
> > > >
> > > > if (open_flag & O_CREAT)
> > > > inode_lock(dir->d_inode);
> > > > else
> > > > inode_lock_shared(dir->d_inode);
> > > > dentry = lookup_open(nd, file, op, got_write);
> > > > - if (!IS_ERR(dentry) && (file->f_mode & FMODE_CREATED))
> > > > - fsnotify_create(dir->d_inode, dentry);
> > > > + if (!IS_ERR(dentry)) {
> > > > + if (file->f_mode & FMODE_CREATED)
> > > > + fsnotify_create(dir->d_inode, dentry);
> > > > + if (file->f_mode & FMODE_OPENED)
> > > > + fsnotify_open(file);
> > > > + }
> > > > if (open_flag & O_CREAT)
> > > > inode_unlock(dir->d_inode);
> > > > else
> > > > inode_unlock_shared(dir->d_inode);
> > > >
> > > > That looks like a place where it is much more obvious this is for
> > > > atomic_open() handling? Now I admit I'm not really closely familiar with
> > > > the atomic_open() paths so maybe I miss something and do_open() is better.
> > >
> > > It looks nice, but I think it is missing the fast lookup case without O_CREAT
> > > (i.e. goto finish_lookup).
> >
> > I don't think so. AFAICT that case will generate the event in vfs_open()
> > anyway and not in open_last_lookups() / do_open(). Am I missing something?
>
> No. I am. This code is hard to follow.
> I am fine with your variant, but maybe after so many in-tree changes
> including the extra change of O_PATH, perhaps it would be better
> to move this patch to your fsnotify tree?
I don't care much which tree this goes through as the actual amount of
context is minimal. But I definitely want to send another version of the
series out to the tree. I guess I'll do it because Neil might have trouble
justifying the O_PATH change in the changelog :).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists