Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230521082813.17025-1-andrea.righi@canonical.com>
 <20230521082813.17025-4-andrea.righi@canonical.com> <CAJfpegtK=dh0yNdvxSC8YF6vOYqGPM5EOWny07jYDdFc0qfhTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOQ4uxjxSVNqicAUhevCXEuRZGZdAPhz4BksM8yE5HbE0piZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjxSVNqicAUhevCXEuRZGZdAPhz4BksM8yE5HbE0piZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Aug 2023 19:26:01 +0300
Message-ID: <CAOQ4uxgzVVh1F6QiMKcXdBsYaVC7zsF4mCLciYnFU8hBvxzgkA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ovl: validate superblock in OVL_FS()
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
        Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
Cc:     linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:14=E2=80=AFPM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:43=E2=80=AFPM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu=
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 21 May 2023 at 10:28, Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>=
 wrote:
> > >
> > > When CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_DEBUG is enabled add an explicit check to make
> > > sure that OVL_FS() is always used with a valid overlayfs superblock.
> > > Otherwise trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE().
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/overlayfs/ovl_entry.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/ovl_entry.h b/fs/overlayfs/ovl_entry.h
> > > index b32c38fdf3c7..e156649d9c71 100644
> > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/ovl_entry.h
> > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/ovl_entry.h
> > > @@ -97,8 +97,20 @@ static inline struct mnt_idmap *ovl_upper_mnt_idma=
p(struct ovl_fs *ofs)
> > >
> > >  extern struct file_system_type ovl_fs_type;
> > >
> > > +static inline bool is_ovl_fs_sb(struct super_block *sb)
> > > +{
> > > +       return sb->s_type =3D=3D &ovl_fs_type;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_DEBUG
> > > +#define OVL_VALIDATE_SB(__sb)  WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_ovl_fs_sb(__sb))
> > > +#else
> > > +#define OVL_VALIDATE_SB(__sb)
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > >  static inline struct ovl_fs *OVL_FS(struct super_block *sb)
> > >  {
> > > +       OVL_VALIDATE_SB(sb);
> >
> > This could be written simply and naturally:
> >
> >     if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_DEBUG))
> >          WARN_ON_ONCE(sb->s_type !=3D &ovl_fs_type)
> >
>
> Andrea,
>
> There is an inherent challenge with a cleanup series like this one
> that touches many functions to avoid merge conflicts with other
> devel branches. I did not try, but I expect there are conflicts
> with the current overlayfs-next branch.
>
> I also see at least one new direct reference of sb->s_fs_info
> in ovl_maybe_validate_verity().
>
> Please make sure to base your next submission on overlayfs-next
> branch from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/overlayfs/vfs.g=
it.
>
> Once you do that, we could apply your patches to overlayfs-next
> so they won't get stale again.

Nevermind, I had rebased overlayfs-next, so already applied your
patches with the needed conflict resolutions and addressed Miklos' comment.

Thanks,
Amir.