linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] exportfs: add flag to allow marking export operations as only supporting file handles

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: <15628525-629f-49a4-a821-92092e2fa8cb@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 11:35:56 -0500
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Erin Shepherd <erin.shepherd@....eu>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] exportfs: add flag to allow marking export operations
 as only supporting file handles

On 12/9/24 11:30 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 2:46 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 09:58:58AM +0100, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>>> To be clear, exporting pidfs or internal shmem via an anonymous fd is
>>> probably not possible with existing userspace tools, but with all the new
>>> mount_fd and magic link apis, I can never be sure what can be made possible
>>> to achieve when the user holds an anonymous fd.
>>>
>>> The thinking behind adding the EXPORT_OP_LOCAL_FILE_HANDLE flag
>>> was that when kernfs/cgroups was added exportfs support with commit
>>> aa8188253474 ("kernfs: add exportfs operations"), there was no intention
>>> to export cgroupfs over nfs, only local to uses, but that was never enforced,
>>> so we thought it would be good to add this restriction and backport it to
>>> stable kernels.
>>
>> Can you please explain what the problem with exporting these file
>> systems over NFS is?  Yes, it's not going to be very useful.  But what
>> is actually problematic about it?  Any why is it not problematic with
>> a userland nfs server?  We really need to settle that argumet before
>> deciding a flag name or polarity.
>>
> 
> I agree that it is not the end of the world and users do have to explicitly
> use fsid= argument to be able to export cgroupfs via nfsd.
> 
> The idea for this patch started from the claim that Jeff wrote that cgroups
> is not allowed for nfsd export, but I couldn't find where it is not allowed.
> 
> I have no issue personally with leaving cgroupfs exportable via nfsd
> and changing restricting only SB_NOUSER and SB_KERNMOUNT fs.
> 
> Jeff, Chuck, what is your opinion w.r.t exportability of cgroupfs via nfsd?

We all seem to be hard-pressed to find a usage scenario where exporting
pseudo-filesystems via NFS is valuable. But maybe someone has done it
and has a good reason for it.

The issue is whether such export should be consistently and actively
prevented.

I'm not aware of any specific security issues with it.


-- 
Chuck Lever