Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:38:22 +0200
From:   Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc:     Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>,
        v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH kernel] 9p/trans_fd: Check file mode at
 opening
Message-ID: <20200729083822.66e165ed@bahia.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20200729061449.GA19682@nautica>
References: <20200728124129.130856-1-aik@ozlabs.ru>
        <20200728194235.52660c08@bahia.lan>
        <20200729061449.GA19682@nautica>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:14:49 +0200
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> wrote:

> Greg Kurz wrote on Tue, Jul 28, 2020:
> > > The "fd" transport layer uses 2 file descriptors passed externally
> > > and calls kernel_write()/kernel_read() on these. If files were opened
> > > without FMODE_WRITE/FMODE_READ, WARN_ON_ONCE() will fire.
> 
> There already is a fix in linux-next as a39c46067c84 ("net/9p: validate
> fds in p9_fd_open")
> 
> > > This adds file mode checking in p9_fd_open; this returns -EBADF to
> > > preserve the original behavior.
> > 
> > So this would cause open() to fail with EBADF, which might look a bit

Oops... this seems to rather end up in mount(). :)

> > weird to userspace since it didn't pass an fd... Is this to have a
> > different error than -EIO that is returned when either rfd or wfd
> > doesn't point to an open file descriptor ? If yes, why do we care ?
> 
> FWIW the solution taken just returns EIO as it would if an invalid fd
> was given, but since it did pass an fd EBADF actually makes sense to me?
> 

POSIX says:

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html

[EBADF]
Bad file descriptor. A file descriptor argument is out of range, refers to
no open file, or a read (write) request is made to a file that is only open
for writing (reading).

It seems that EBADF would be appropriate for both the existing and the
new error path.

> However to the second question I'm not sure I care :)
> 
> > > Found by syzkaller.
> 
> I'm starting to understand where David comment came from the other day,
> I guess it's still time to change my mind and submit to linus now I've
> had time to test it...
>