linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
	Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
	Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 2/6] namei: LOOKUP_IN_ROOT: chroot-like path resolution
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 15:15:41 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191012041541.milbmfbjpj5bcl5a@yavin.dot.cyphar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191012040815.gnc43cfmo5mnv67u@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4304 bytes --]

On 2019-10-12, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:
> On 2019-10-10, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:42 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- a/fs/namei.c
> > > +++ b/fs/namei.c
> > > @@ -2277,6 +2277,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> > >
> > >         nd->m_seq = read_seqbegin(&mount_lock);
> > >
> > > +       /* LOOKUP_IN_ROOT treats absolute paths as being relative-to-dirfd. */
> > > +       if (flags & LOOKUP_IN_ROOT)
> > > +               while (*s == '/')
> > > +                       s++;
> > > +
> > >         /* Figure out the starting path and root (if needed). */
> > >         if (*s == '/') {
> > >                 error = nd_jump_root(nd);
> > 
> > Hmm. Wouldn't this make more sense all inside the if (*s =- '/') test?
> > That way if would be where we check for "should we start at the root",
> > which seems to make more sense conceptually.
> 
> I don't really agree (though I do think that both options are pretty
> ugly). Doing it before the block makes it clear that absolute paths are
> just treated relative-to-dirfd -- doing it inside the block makes it
> look more like "/" is a special-case for nd_jump_root(). And while that

Sorry, I meant "special-case for LOOKUP_IN_ROOT".

> is somewhat true, this is just a side-effect of making the code more
> clean -- my earlier versions reworked the dirfd handling to always grab
> nd->root first if LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED. I switched to this method based on
> Al's review.
> 
> In fairness, I do agree that the lonely while loop looks ugly.

And with the old way I did it (where we grabbed nd->root first) the
semantics were slightly more clear -- stripping leading "/"s doesn't
really look as "clearly obvious" as grabbing nd->root beforehand and
treating "/"s normally. But the code was also needlessly more complex.

> > That test for '/' currently has a "} else if (..)", but that's
> > pointless since it ends with a "return" anyway. So the "else" logic is
> > just noise.
> 
> This depends on the fact that LOOKUP_BENEATH always triggers -EXDEV for
> nd_jump_root() -- if we ever add another "scoped lookup" flag then the
> logic will have to be further reworked.
> 
> (It should be noted that the new version doesn't always end with a
> "return", but you could change it to act that way given the above
> assumption.)
> 
> > And if you get rid of the unnecessary else, moving the LOOKUP_IN_ROOT
> > inside the if-statement works fine.
> > 
> > So this could be something like
> > 
> >     --- a/fs/namei.c
> >     +++ b/fs/namei.c
> >     @@ -2194,11 +2196,19 @@ static const char *path_init(struct
> > nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> > 
> >         nd->m_seq = read_seqbegin(&mount_lock);
> >         if (*s == '/') {
> >     -           set_root(nd);
> >     -           if (likely(!nd_jump_root(nd)))
> >     -                   return s;
> >     -           return ERR_PTR(-ECHILD);
> >     -   } else if (nd->dfd == AT_FDCWD) {
> >     +           /* LOOKUP_IN_ROOT treats absolute paths as being
> > relative-to-dirfd. */
> >     +           if (!(flags & LOOKUP_IN_ROOT)) {
> >     +                   set_root(nd);
> >     +                   if (likely(!nd_jump_root(nd)))
> >     +                           return s;
> >     +                   return ERR_PTR(-ECHILD);
> >     +           }
> >     +
> >     +           /* Skip initial '/' for LOOKUP_IN_ROOT */
> >     +           do { s++; } while (*s == '/');
> >     +   }
> >     +
> >     +   if (nd->dfd == AT_FDCWD) {
> >                 if (flags & LOOKUP_RCU) {
> >                         struct fs_struct *fs = current->fs;
> >                         unsigned seq;
> > 
> > instead. The patch ends up slightly bigger (due to the re-indentation)
> > but now it handles all the "start at root" in the same place. Doesn't
> > that make sense?
> 
> It is correct (though I'd need to clean it up a bit to handle
> nd_jump_root() correctly), and if you really would like me to change it
> I will -- but I just don't agree that it's cleaner.

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-12  4:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-10  5:41 [PATCH v14 0/6] open: introduce openat2(2) syscall Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 1/6] namei: O_BENEATH-style resolution restriction flags Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 2/6] namei: LOOKUP_IN_ROOT: chroot-like path resolution Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10 17:07   ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-12  4:08     ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-12  4:15       ` Aleksa Sarai [this message]
2019-10-24  7:06         ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 3/6] namei: permit ".." resolution with LOOKUP_{IN_ROOT,BENEATH} Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 4/6] open: introduce openat2(2) syscall Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 5/6] selftests: add openat2(2) selftests Aleksa Sarai
2019-10-10  5:41 ` [PATCH v14 6/6] Documentation: path-lookup: mention LOOKUP_MAGICLINK_JUMPED Aleksa Sarai

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20191012041541.milbmfbjpj5bcl5a@yavin.dot.cyphar.com \
    --to=cyphar@cyphar.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=asarai@suse.de \
    --cc=ast@kernel.org \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=chanho.min@lge.com \
    --cc=christian@brauner.io \
    --cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=drysdale@google.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org \
    --cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).