From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44503 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933021AbeFGRjN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:39:13 -0400 From: Mark Fasheh To: Al Viro Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J . Wong" , Adam Borowski , David Sterba Subject: [PATCH v3 0/2] vfs: better dedupe permission check Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:38:52 -0700 Message-Id: <20180607173854.15747-1-mfasheh@suse.de> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Al, The following patches fix a couple of issues with the permission check we do in vfs_dedupe_file_range(). I sent them out for review twice, a changelog is attached. If they look ok to you, I'd appreciate them being pushed upstream. You can get them from git if you like: git pull https://github.com/markfasheh/linux dedupe-perms The first patch expands our check to allow dedupe of a file if the user owns it or otherwise would be allowed to write to it. Current behavior is that we'll allow dedupe only if: - the user is an admin (root) - the user has the file open for write This makes it impossible for a user to dedupe their own file set unless they do it as root, or ensure that all files have write permission. There's a couple of duperemove bugs open for this: https://github.com/markfasheh/duperemove/issues/129 https://github.com/markfasheh/duperemove/issues/86 The other problem we have is also related to forcing the user to open target files for write - A process trying to exec a file currently being deduped gets ETXTBUSY. The answer (as above) is to allow them to open the targets ro - root can already do this. There was a patch from Adam Borowski to fix this back in 2016: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/7/17/130 which I have incorporated into my changes. The 2nd patch fixes our return code for permission denied to be EPERM. For some reason we're returning EINVAL - I think that's probably my fault. At any rate, we need to be returning something descriptive of the actual problem, otherwise callers see EINVAL and can't really make a valid determination of what's gone wrong. This has also popped up in duperemove, mostly in the form of cryptic error messages. Because this is a code returned to userspace, I did check the other users of extent-same that I could find. Both 'bees' and 'rust-btrfs' do the same as duperemove and simply report the error (as they should). Please apply. Thanks, --Mark Changes from V2 to V3: - Return bool from allow_file_dedupe - V2 discussion: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg78421.html Changes from V1 to V2: - Add inode_permission check as suggested by Adam Borowski - V1 discussion: https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=152606684017965&w=2