On 07/18/2017 07:48 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 04:50:22PM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>> On 07/17/2017 02:58 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:05:11AM -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * xattr_list_userns_rewrite - Rewrite list of xattr names for user namespaces
>>>> + *                             or determine needed size for attribute list
>>>> + *                             in case size == 0
>>>> + *
>>>> + * In a user namespace we do not present all extended attributes to the
>>>> + * user. We filter out those that are in the list of userns supported xattr.
>>>> + * Besides that we filter out those with @uid=<uid> when there is no mapping
>>>> + * for that uid in the current user namespace.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * @list:        list of 0-byte separated xattr names
>>>> + * @size:        the size of the list; may be 0 to determine needed list size
>>>> + * @list_maxlen: allocated buffer size of list
>>>> + */
>>>> +static ssize_t
>>>> +xattr_list_userns_rewrite(char *list, ssize_t size, size_t list_maxlen)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	char *nlist = NULL;
>>>> +	size_t s_off, len, nlen;
>>>> +	ssize_t d_off;
>>>> +	char *name, *newname;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!list || size < 0 || current_user_ns() == &init_user_ns)
>>> size will never be less than 0 here. Only caller calls this function only
>>> if size is >0. So can we remove this?
>> Correct.
>>
>>> What about case of "!list". So if user space called listxattr(foo, NULL,
>>> 0), we want to return the size of buffer as if all the xattrs will be
>>> returned to user space. But in practice we probably will filter out some
>>> xattrs so actually returned string will be smaller than size reported
>>> previously.
>> This case of size=0 is a problem in userns. Depending on the mapping of the
>> userid's the list can expand. A security.foo@uid=100 can become
>> security.foo@uid=100000, if the mapping is set up so that uid 100 on the
>> host becomes uid 100000 inside the container. So for now we only have
>> security.capability and the way I solved this is by allocating a 65k buffer
>> when calling from a userns. In this buffer where we gather the xattr names
>> and then walk them to determine the size that's needed for the buffer by
>> simulating the rewriting. It's not nice but I don't know of any other
>> solution.
> Hi Stefan,
>
> For the case of size==0, why don't we iterate through all the xattr,
> filter them, remap them and then return the size to process in user
> namespace. That should fix this? I thought that's what


For the size==0 we need a temp. buffer where the raw xattr names are 
written to so that the xattr_list_userns_rewrite() can actually rewrite 
what the filesystem drivers returned. Not knowing exactly how big that 
buffer should be, I allocate 65k for it. From what I read there is a 64k 
limit on the vfs layer for xattrs, probably including xattr values. So 
65k would for sure be enough also if each one of the xattr names becomes 
bigger.

@@ -922,10 +947,20 @@ vfs_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *list, 
size_t size, bool rewrite)
  {
      struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
      ssize_t error;
+    bool getsize = false;

      error = security_inode_listxattr(dentry);
      if (error)
          return error;
+
+    if (!size) {
+        if (current_user_ns() != &init_user_ns) {
+            size = 65 * 1024;
+            list = kmalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
+        }
+        getsize = true;
+    }
+
      if (inode->i_op->listxattr && (inode->i_opflags & IOP_XATTR)) {
          error = -EOPNOTSUPP;
          error = inode->i_op->listxattr(dentry, list, size);
@@ -937,6 +972,9 @@ vfs_listxattr(struct dentry *dentry, char *list, 
size_t size, bool rewrite)
      if (error > 0 && rewrite)
          error = xattr_list_userns_rewrite(list, error, size);

+    if (getsize)
+        kfree(list);
+
      return error;
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfs_listxattr);


     Stefan

> xattr_list_userns_rewrite() was doing. But looks like this logic will not
> kick in for the case of size==0 due to "!list" condition.
>
> Also we could probably replace "!list" with "!size" wheverever required.
> Its little easy to read and understand.
>
> For the other case where some xattrs can get filtered out and we report
> a buffer size bigger than actually needed, I am hoping that its acceptable
> and none of the existing users are broken.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>