Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 14:07:07 -0800
From: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
To: Eric Rannaud <e@nanocritical.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] fs: allow open(dir, O_TMPFILE|..., 0) with mode 0
Message-ID: <20141103220707.GJ5389@samba2>
Reply-To: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
References: <5452B241.5010603@amacapital.net>
 <CA+55aFw5xL4jk_=oJK1tTwpGG5Y_cibK3y9L=VvYx9jugqrUuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFw5GqoTF3r=OK+pmdbvm_sdDvkeZMdwk_3TdSg2eyr7MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrUpMOX-0=7Pdv_etjzOjZVH4nrtiqCdWYqtM-ECKFrsYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141031084220.GA29085@infradead.org>
 <CALCETrXdPV5+qJ438Ky=tfBiEmqeeTYNuukQS7TcjbEwDgzwGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFxUdjsm0gC0ULaOq_RhDLjWp=RDOE_O9qXdQRPqJUrZVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141103083447.GA8617@infradead.org>
 <CALCETrUjbfSiPUvTzTfOVAbxy5dy3PpKnnC+h4P_+FOeibTgDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH_=xobsXZq9M-vXDN_+cQmvRLtgPOzHMbrnzsEToMgLD5CoxA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAH_=xobsXZq9M-vXDN_+cQmvRLtgPOzHMbrnzsEToMgLD5CoxA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 10:49:24AM -0800, Eric Rannaud wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> >> That doesn't help because we explicitly reject O_RDONLY when combined
> >> with O_TMPFILE.
> >
> > I think I'm missing something.  How is an O_RDONLY temporary file
> > useful?  Wouldn't you want an O_RDWR tempfile with mode 0400 or
> > something like that?
> 
> Isn't it because they are essentially emulating an atomic open()
> capable of creating a file with inherited ACLs, according to
> relatively complex rules? open *can* be used with O_CREAT|O_RDONLY
> (touch(1) might do that), which would naively translate into:
> 
>         fd = open(dir, O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY, 0600)
>         fsetxattr(fd, "...")
>         fsetxattr(fd, "...")
>         linkat(AT_FDCWD, "/proc/self/fd/...", ..., AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW)
>         return fd;
> 
> Now this would be happening on the server, and the only reason why it
> would be important to ensure that fd is O_RDONLY, is that smbd does
> not do its own bookkeeping of how each file handle was opened, and
> would rather have the kernel enforce O_RDONLY?
> 
> With O_TMPFILE as implemented now, smbd would have to do open(dir,
> O_TMPFILE|O_RDWR, 0600), but internally keep track that O_RDONLY was
> requested by the client on that fd, and block any writes to fd itself.

Which we already do, actually..

Although the atomic open emulation is
a very interesting idea for us. That's
something we currently don't do correctly
across different protocols (although we
do it between smbd's themselves).

Jeremy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/