Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp6039515wrg; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 00:23:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvpZoh3gKx0HNGo4pCj3Lf2fBlinVKB/a++Quozuikex6qw3xOal9c4XspCCaNQmF6VQFRR X-Received: by 10.99.109.67 with SMTP id i64mr16545702pgc.238.1520497427007; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:23:47 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1520497426; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=0arXl9/u1uV3D03omoqm8B8Qg9/OkDn6nw2KkzLQvT5jpT7Y8o+vKkfhxWLvLE0D97 Za+jWVwSD33dLvincIwKJRKCGHlvQmk1BKY1O+6VTGn2f+PJ96kxKcoSJ5hQyWW8efmE O7GK5FVw/kW4iOvlO3Vq4RO9+hri+357+EMK4PD219j1+cxZAHc1E1Y+xy0o7eTWY1ec mv84mE+Tw5j7y2NbP9ieUhZ3rgV3c3R3qelaxEy4Q/8tsfosFIRqgqNKe+2Ln3tlCou/ w1XSHObZUPX1h9KU0xcF0vfHyMCLUiiicmYUqYT7fz2vi9/TYAetNbCkh1x2e0ZTbLEh RvUA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:date:from :arc-authentication-results; bh=T6ji0v1WhXddhVmtAO7m3qF4L903NJYGQtgFfZSuGws=; b=L+VtmQRIVhN5DGJBt8nKFB/mFJDc0yuZgoyRNvfw4yv0vLFurqCnC1wmdj4VOrJ+gL nIjzyZ/ytWsEkMv9UBqQ3hH5l/sqkqdZpbaJXhLaC2HbE3PTsdfBv3W2FW21a/9d/27k hOJk1Amo85fqsDPmgKGo+/XWbHw+bR3Axf6FJKfEBnwk631HBSg+nXMn/SJJFKxGfT5Z R/HmK+wXjoE3SXfr48qAmwzfoR46s2A2Ypp8V2GJKBPex3bfCWfg0I61vBexsYOb2mLg l7DP2OGBGpZgVkex6mL5Q3VQYhicuflfd9gPGwQkIx0QW/CVnkNsDKARguSZwofGR0DW spGQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w61-v6si14431491plb.733.2018.03.08.00.23.32; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:23:46 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755259AbeCHIWe (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 03:22:34 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:45207 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751315AbeCHIWc (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2018 03:22:32 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f69.google.com ([74.125.82.69]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1etqop-00014t-Jr for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:22:31 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f69.google.com with SMTP id p13so2293628wmc.6 for ; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:22:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=T6ji0v1WhXddhVmtAO7m3qF4L903NJYGQtgFfZSuGws=; b=REj3dRb2haHMFP6pvRqk3ZAnL8KoRKww9DQQEjuf8OFGhWpli2OfhRCtZsvEMUxR9z 8oj3IjYzAXUU5b9ZIzz8/uepm/GvAbIHqrpu4kTX73B6TDk7yE89FzPNXXggd/VHNGZ6 K5QtpuxfnFtBRrYMDIOnEhpCNEnu1p1X0BcvYmnv+ay3DUhOatPS9DSeKGg3TfDnsCPM ZdES8zCrOIuIjzL6FadmPFKKoRTFo/3z70tHi82+G7ZarTYvGYjPvjmY9mhR8izuw3tX u5klTBIR5GOylPL7dtNRapxPZZf5+Hx9/alipRw7IrixlDCVRoFdAHqMD8dWzMqdZ2WA pE9A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDHWKCN+eldVFetpFpQsu32x25twJjNp+MtZTGGLAAJoW4Hh3Lw Cn9j6ntuOtfxB6D/2ff2F+2d4vZ86+wQlWbW95pwIW+15vlhIQeraKU2D2uEve6Q7LrBQvb0O+/ wgP/ngejeooZmB1SxgKVEAuBU0MnMBnGv9pqsv1mwbA== X-Received: by 10.223.175.235 with SMTP id y43mr20902973wrd.41.1520497351199; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:22:31 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.223.175.235 with SMTP id y43mr20902953wrd.41.1520497350870; Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from gmail.com ([37.220.133.201]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m62sm20912374wmi.19.2018.03.08.00.22.29 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Mar 2018 00:22:30 -0800 (PST) From: Christian Brauner X-Google-Original-From: Christian Brauner Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:22:29 +0100 To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: Invalid /proc//fd/{0,1,2} symlinks with TIOCGPTPEER Message-ID: <20180308082228.GD22728@gmail.com> References: <20180307161744.GA17562@gmail.com> <878tb3u1hv.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <878tb3u1hv.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 01:30:52PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Christian Brauner writes: > > > Hey, > > > > We discovered a potential bug in the devpts implementation via > > TIOCGPTPEER ioctl()s today. We've tackled a similar problem already in: > > > > commit 311fc65c9fb9c966bca8e6f3ff8132ce57344ab9 > > Author: Eric W. Biederman > > Date: Thu Aug 24 15:13:29 2017 -0500 > > > > pty: Repair TIOCGPTPEER > > > > Most libcs will *still* look at /dev/ptmx when opening the master fd of > > pty device. Usually, /dev/ptmx will nowadays be either a symlink to > > /dev/pts/ptmx or it will be a second device node with permissions 666 > > whereas /dev/pts/ptmx will usually have permissions 000. Afaik, we've > > also always supported making /dev/ptmx a bind-mount to /dev/pts/ptmx or > > at least I haven't observed any issues with this so far and it's > > something fairly common in containers. So in short, it should be legal > > to do: > > > > mount --bind /dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx > > chmod 666 /dev/ptmx > > > > However, for any libc implementation or program that uses TIOCGPTPEER > > the /proc//fd/{0,1,2} symlinks are broken (currently affects at > > least glibc 2.27) with bind-mounts of /dev/pts/ptmx to /dev/ptmx. A > > quick reproducer is: > > > > unshare --mount > > mount --bind /dev/pts/ptmx /dev/ptmx > > chmod 666 /dev/ptmx > > script > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > > > Let's assume the slave device index I received was 5 then I would expect to > > see: > > > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > lrwx------ 1 chb chb 64 Mar 7 16:41 /proc/self/fd/0 -> /dev/pts/5 > > > > But what I actually see is: > > > > ls -al /proc/self/fd/0 > > lrwx------ 1 chb chb 64 Mar 7 16:41 /proc/self/fd/0 -> / > > > > I think the explanation for this is fairly straightforward. When > > userspace does: > > > > master = open("/dev/ptmx", O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY); > > slave = ioctl(master, TIOCGPTPEER, O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY); > > > > and /dev/ptmx is a bind-mount of /dev/pts/ptmx looking up the root mount > > of the dentry for the slave it appears to the kernel as if the dentry is > > escaping it's bind-mount: > > > > ├─/dev udev devtmpfs rw,nosuid,relatime,size=4001260k,nr_inodes=1000315,mode=755 > > │ ├─/dev/pts devpts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 > > │ └─/dev/ptmx devpts[/ptmx] devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 > > > > since the root mount of the dentry is /dev/pts but the root mount of > > /dev/ptmx is /dev if I'm correct so similar to what Linus pointed out in > > a previous discussion (see [1]) before. So we still record the "wrong" > > vfsmount when /dev/ptmx is a bind-mount and then hit the problem when we > > call devpts_mntget() in drivers/tty/pty.c. > > I think your analysis of why we return / is correct. If the root of the > mount is a file (aka /dev/pts/ptmx). Then any other file will on that > mount will not be under the root of the mount, and will be displayed > as '/'. Because we have in fact escaped the root of the mount. > > I think this is more of a quality of implementation issue more than a > bug per se. It's at least a regression since this used to work before. :) > > > So I thought about this and - in case my analysis is correct - the > > solution didn't seem obvious to me as a bind-mount has no concept of > > what it's "parent" is (Which in this case should be the devpts mount at > > /dev/pts.). > > We might be able to improve the quality of the implementation, by > noticing this case early (sb->s_root != mnt->mnt_root) and using the > same tricks on /dev/pts/ptmx as we do on /dev/ptmx. That is looking > in ../pts and see if the filesystem we want is there. > > It would be a wee bit tricky but doable. The practical question becomes > what breaks and what makes it worth maintaining such a mechanism. > > I don't remember how important it is to have a valid path in proc. So > I won't comment on how important it is to improve the quality of > the implementation. It's quite important for containers. The problem is that we can't (yet) mknod() in a user namespace and making /dev/ptmx a symlink to /dev/pts/ptmx will cause issues when used together with path-based LSMs like AppArmor so a bind-mount is the only reliable option. > > The code can be improved by doing something like: Right, what do you think about Linus suggestion? I'm happy to look into it. Christian > > static int devpts_ptmx_pts_path(struct path *path) > { > struct super_block *sb; > int err; > > /* Is a devpts filesystem at "pts" in the same directory? */ > err = path_pts(path); > if (err) > return err; > > /* Is the path the root of a devpts filesystem? */ > sb = path->mnt->mnt_sb; > if ((sb->s_magic != DEVPTS_SUPER_MAGIC) || > (path->mnt->mnt_root != sb->s_root)) > return -ENODEV; > > return 0; > } > > .... > if ((DEVPTS_SB(path.mnt->mnt_sb) == fsi) && > (path.mnt->mnt_root == fsi->ptmx_dentry)) { > /* While the start point is a bind mount of single file > * walk upwards. > */ > while ((path.mnt->mnt_root == path.dentry) && follow_up(&path)) > ; > if (devpts_ptmx_pts_path(&path) == 0) { > dput(path.dentry); > return path.mnt; > } > /* No luck fall through to the old code */ > path_put(path); > path = filp->f_path; > path_get(&path); > } > > The fall through vs fail would be a judgement on how important it is to > have a useable path in proc for TIOCPTPEER. > > Eric