Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754112AbZLANP3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:15:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753918AbZLANP3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:15:29 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:20373 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753676AbZLANP2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:15:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:15:15 -0500 From: Jeff Layton To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pavel@ucw.cz, miklos@szeredi.hu, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] vfs: plug some holes involving LAST_BIND symlinks and file bind mounts (try #5) Message-ID: <20091201081515.4639de6a@tlielax.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1258998084-26797-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2471 Lines: 56 On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:05:24 -0800 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Jeff Layton writes: > > > There are a few situations where a lookup can end up returning a dentry > > without revalidating it, and without checking whether the calling > > process has permissions to access it. Two situations identified so far > > are: > > > > 1) LAST_BIND symlinks (such as those under /proc/) > > > > 2) file bind mounts > > > > This patchset is intended to fix this by forcing revalidation of the > > returned dentries at appropriate locations. > > > > In the case of LAST_BIND symlinks it also adds a check to verify that > > the target of the symlink is accessible by the current process by > > walking mounts and dentries back up to the root and checking permission > > on each inode. > > > > This set fixes the reproducers I have (including the reproducer that > > Pavel provided for the permissions bypass). It's still pretty rough > > though and I expect that it'll need revision. At this point, I'm mainly > > looking to get these questions answered: > > > > 1) what should we do if these dentries are found to be invalid? Is it ok > > to d_invalidate them? Or is that likely to break something (particularly > > in the case of file bind mounts)? > > The normal sequence in do_revalidate should be safe. In practice what we > should see is d_drop(). If we access the dentries via another path today > we already go through d_revalidate. It is only the reference count on > the dentry that keeps them alive and working. The cases I have looked > at for distributed filesystems have to call d_drop themselves so I don't > know if it would add anything if the vfs called d_revalidate. Especially > since FS_REVAL_DOT doesn't have that logic. > There seems to be a lot of disagreement about whether the issue that Pavel raised is even a bug. I think what I'm going to do at this point is respin this patchset without that patch (just add the missing revalidations). I'll also plan to just have force_reval_path call do_revalidate instead so that invalid dentries get d_invalidated too. Any other thoughts on the first two patches in this set? -- Jeff Layton -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/