* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-10 0:20 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 6:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (4 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-10 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
Theodore Tso (tytso@mit.edu) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |tytso@mit.edu
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #1 from Theodore Tso (tytso@mit.edu) ---
This is not a bug, but rather things working as expected. This is because
truncate does not actually allocate any disk blocks. It merely sets the
i_size of the inode to be the specified quantity. If i_size is less than
where blocks currently are allocated and assigned to the inode at those logical
offsets, then those blocks will be deallocated. But truncate never allocates
any additional data blocks.
Try running "du id", and see how much disk space the file takes. Or try using
"ls -s", which will show the disk space used by the file --- which is different
from the size of the file. If this puzzles you, look up the definition of
"sparse file".
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-10 0:20 ` [Bug 214665] " bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-11 6:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 14:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (3 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-11 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
leveryd (1157599735@qq.com) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #2 from leveryd (1157599735@qq.com) ---
i know `truncate` file does not task up disk space, but i still think it has
some "design" problem about security.
* why i still think it has some problem?
because developer will trust "quota limit" very likely, so they will not
check the file is "truncate file" or not before they do some operation on file.
for example(assume a scenario): developer limit every ftp user's disk space
by using "disk quotas", and there is a crontab job which will backup ftp user's
files every day. if this crontab job does not check "truncate file" exist or
not and then backup using "tar" or "zip" compress command, then when a
malicious user create a file using `truncate -s 100G id`, after compress this
special "truncate file`, the machine disk space will be consumed more than 100G
actually.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-10 0:20 ` [Bug 214665] " bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 6:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-11 14:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 14:43 ` bugzilla-daemon
` (2 subsequent siblings)
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-11 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
Lukas Czerner (lczerner@redhat.com) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |lczerner@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Czerner (lczerner@redhat.com) ---
Quotas help to control the amount of space and number of inodes used. If the
sparse file (created by truncate, or seek/write, or any other method available)
does not actually consume the fs space, then it simply can't be accounted for
by quota. So as Ted already said it is working as expected.
Back to your scenario. Quota has nothing to say about how the files are
manipulated so if the program copying/decompressing or otherwise manipulating
the sparse file decides to actually write the zeros and thus allocate the
space, so be it. That's hardly a bug in quota or file system itself.
If your expectation is that while manipulating the sparse file, the file will
remain sparse, you should make sure that the tools you're using will actually
do what you want. Note that tar does have --sparse options which, if I
understand your example correctly, should work as you expect.
Some basic information about sparse can be found here files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_file
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-11 14:24 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-11 14:43 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 14:47 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 17:05 ` bugzilla-daemon
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-11 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
Theodore Tso (tytso@mit.edu) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #4 from Theodore Tso (tytso@mit.edu) ---
As Lukas said, "truncate" is not the only way to create sparse files. And
there are many Unix / Linux programs that depend on the ability to create
sparse files, since Unix support of sparse files goes back at roughly 50 years
(half a century).
The fact that clueless users / sysadmins might not understand basic Unix/Linux
behavior is not a bug in Linux. There are plenty of other ways that an
experienced sysadmin might shoot themselves in the foot....
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-11 14:43 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-11 14:47 ` bugzilla-daemon
2021-10-11 17:05 ` bugzilla-daemon
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-11 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
--- Comment #5 from Theodore Tso (tytso@mit.edu) ---
Correction to #4:
There are plenty of other ways that an *inexperienced* sysadmin might shoot
themselves in the foot....
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [Bug 214665] security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit
2021-10-09 10:23 [Bug 214665] New: security bug:using "truncate" bypass disk quotas limit bugzilla-daemon
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-10-11 14:47 ` bugzilla-daemon
@ 2021-10-11 17:05 ` bugzilla-daemon
5 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla-daemon @ 2021-10-11 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214665
Darrick J. Wong (djwong@kernel.org) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |djwong@kernel.org
--- Comment #6 from Darrick J. Wong (djwong@kernel.org) ---
(In reply to Theodore Tso from comment #5)
> Correction to #4:
>
> There are plenty of other ways that an *inexperienced* sysadmin might shoot
> themselves in the foot....
I disagree, there are plenty of ways experienced sysadmins and kernel
maintainers such as myself shoot themselves in the foot. ;)
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread