Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 1/3] virtiofsd: Don't allow empty paths in lookup_name()

[Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>]

On 3/12/21 8:10 AM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> When passed an empty filename, lookup_name() returns the inode of
> the parent directory, unless the parent is the root in which case
> the st_dev doesn't match and lo_find() returns NULL. This is
> because lookup_name() passes AT_EMPTY_PATH down to fstatat() or
> statx().
> 
> This behavior doesn't quite make sense because users of lookup_name()
> then pass the name to unlinkat(), renameat() or renameat2(), all of
> which will always fail on empty names.
> 
> Drop AT_EMPTY_PATH from the flags in lookup_name() so that it has
> the consistent behavior of "returning an existing child inode or
> NULL" for all directories.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <groug@kaod.org>
> ---
>   tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> index fc7e1b1e8e2b..27a6c636dcaf 100644
> --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_ll.c
> @@ -1308,8 +1308,7 @@ static struct lo_inode *lookup_name(fuse_req_t req, fuse_ino_t parent,
>           return NULL;
>       }
>   
> -    res = do_statx(lo, dir->fd, name, &attr,
> -                   AT_EMPTY_PATH | AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, &mnt_id);
> +    res = do_statx(lo, dir->fd, name, &attr, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, &mnt_id);
>       lo_inode_put(lo, &dir);
>       if (res == -1) {
>           return NULL;
> 

Should the statx() in lo_do_lookup() have this flag removed as well? I 
don't think its callers will pass in an empty name because:

   - One of your later patches prevents lo_mknod_symlink() from doing so
   - lo_create() will fail an earlier call against the host file system 
(open)
   - lo_do_readdir() shouldn't be reading empty names because that 
implies someone was able to pull off making an entry with an empty name

However, I don't know if there will one day be future callers to 
lo_do_lookup() that will depend on that flag.

If the answer to the above is no, then:

Reviewed-by: Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@redhat.com>