Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-142173-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 09:45:54 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Charles Mirabile <cmirabil@redhat.com>, 
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: relax linkat() AT_EMPTY_PATH - aka flink() -
 requirements
Message-ID: <20240412-labeln-filmabend-42422ec453d7@brauner>
References: <20240411001012.12513-1-torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
 <CAHk-=wiaoij30cnx=jfvg=Br3YTxhQjp4VWRc6=xYE2=+EVRPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240411-alben-kocht-219170e9dc99@brauner>
 <CAHk-=wjrPDx=f5OSnQVbbJ4id6SZk-exB1VW9Uz3R7rKFvTQeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABe3_aGbsPHY9Z5B9WyVWakeWFtief4DpBrDxUiD00qk1irMrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABe3_aGGf7kb97gE4FdGmT79Kh5OhbB_2Hqt898WZ+4XGg6j4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABe3_aE_quPE0zKe-p11DF1rBx-+ecJKORY=96WyJ_b+dbxL9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjuzUTH0ZiPe0dAZ4rcVeNoJxhK8Hh_WRBY-ZqM-pGBqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgEdyUeiu=94iuJsf2vEfeyjqTXa+dSpUD6F4jvJ=87cw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgEdyUeiu=94iuJsf2vEfeyjqTXa+dSpUD6F4jvJ=87cw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:34:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 at 11:13, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > So while I understand your motivation, I actually think it's actively
> > wrong to special-case __O_TMPFILE, because it encourages a pattern
> > that is bad.
> 
> Just to clarify: I think the ns_capable() change is a good idea and
> makes sense. The whole "limited to global root" makes no sense if the
> file was opened within a namespace, and I think it always just came
> from the better check not being obvious at the point where
> AT_EMPTY_PATH was checked for.
> 
> Similarly, while the FMODE_PATH test _looks_ very similar to an
> O_TMPFILE check, I think it's fundamentally different in a conceptual
> sense: not only is FMODE_PATH filesystem-agnostic, a FMODE_PATH file
> is *only* useful as a pathname (ie no read/write semantics).

But the annoying part imho is that we also allow stuff like fsetxattr()
to work on O_PATH file descriptors. Something that I really dislike.

> 
> And so if a FMODE_PATH file descriptor is passed in from the outside,
> I feel like the "you cannot use this to create a path" is kind of a
> fundamentally nonsensical rule.

Hm, I would like to avoid adding an exception for O_PATH. While it is
useful for lookup O_PATH is also often used simply as an opaque handle
to a file. O_PATH is often used to simply identify or compare files, or
for execveat(). Especially for cross-container interactions it would be
nice to not generally allow O_PATH to be linkat()ed. The current
behavior proposed in this patch should be enough.