MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230116212105.1840362-1-mjguzik@gmail.com> <20230116212105.1840362-2-mjguzik@gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhSKEyyd-s_j=1UbA0+vOK7ggyCp6e-FNSG7XVYvCxoLnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHF+bg0qiq+ByVpysa9t8J=zpF8=d1CqDVS5GmOGpVM9rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhTnpWKnKRu3wFTNfub_qdcDePdEXYZWOpvpqL0fcfS_Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGudoHEWQJKMS=pL9Ate4COshgQaC-fjQ2RN3LiYmdS=0MVruA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhSYg-BbJvNBZd3dayYCf8bzedASoidnX23_i4iK7P-WxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiG5wdWrx2uXRK3-i31Zp416krnu_KjmBbS3BVkiAUXLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHC9VhTg8mMHzdSPbpxvOQCWxuNuXzR7c6FJOg5+XGb-PYemRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGudoHG-42ziSNT0g8asRj8iGzx-Gn=ETZuXkswER3Daov37=A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHG-42ziSNT0g8asRj8iGzx-Gn=ETZuXkswER3Daov37=A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 12:07:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhRG2gcuuN87sKtsPeF-S2BG1DrSCHruAnCAdCkviHuS3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vfs: avoid duplicating creds in faccessat if possible
To:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, serge@hallyn.com,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:00 AM Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/23, Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > Although I'm looking at this again and realized that only
> > do_faccessat() calls access_override_creds(), so why not just fold the
> > new access_need_override_creds() logic into access_override_creds()?
> > Just have one function that takes the flag value, and returns an
> > old_cred/NULL pointer (or pass old_cred to the function by reference
> > and return an error code); that should still provide the performance
> > win Mateusz is looking for while providing additional safety against
> > out-of-sync changes.  I would guess the code would be smaller too.
>
> It is unclear from the description if you are arguing for moving the new
> func into access_override_creds almost as is just put prior to existing
> code *or* mixing checks with assignments.

"arguing" is a bit strong of a word for what I was thinking, it was
more of just tossing out an idea to see if it has any merit with you,
the VFS folks, and possibly Linus.

> static bool *access_override_creds(struct cred **ptr)
>         [snip]
>         if (!uid_eq(cred->fsuid, cred->uid) ||
>             !gid_eq(cred->fsgid, cred->gid))
>                 return false;
>         /* remaining checks go here as well */
>         [snip]
>
>         override_cred = prepare_creds();
>         if (!override_cred) {
>                 *ptr = NULL;
>                 return true;
>         }
>
>         override_cred->fsuid = override_cred->uid;
>         override_cred->fsgid = override_cred->gid;
>         [snip]
>
> If this is what you had in mind, I note it retains all the duplication
> except in one func body which I'm confident does not buy anything,
> provided the warning comment is added.
>
> At the same time the downside is that it uglifies error handling at the
> callsite, so I would say a net loss.

Yes, I was thinking of combining the two functions into one to better
link the cred checks with the cred adjustments.

> Addition of the warning comment makes sense, but concerns after that
> don't sound legitimate to me.

Well, as we talked about earlier, it's really up to the VFS folks to
pick what they want, and they have been suspiciously quiet thus far.

--
paul-moore.com