* [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event @ 2020-09-14 17:27 Weiping Zhang 2020-09-15 7:08 ` Jan Kara 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Weiping Zhang @ 2020-09-14 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jack, amir73il; +Cc: linux-fsdevel Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> --- fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c | 3 ++- include/linux/inotify.h | 2 +- include/uapi/linux/inotify.h | 3 ++- 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c index 186722ba3894..eb42d11a9988 100644 --- a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c @@ -819,8 +819,9 @@ static int __init inotify_user_setup(void) BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_EXCL_UNLINK != FS_EXCL_UNLINK); BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_ISDIR != FS_ISDIR); BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_ONESHOT != FS_IN_ONESHOT); + BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_OPEN_EXEC != FS_OPEN_EXEC); - BUILD_BUG_ON(HWEIGHT32(ALL_INOTIFY_BITS) != 22); + BUILD_BUG_ON(HWEIGHT32(ALL_INOTIFY_BITS) != 23); inotify_inode_mark_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(inotify_inode_mark, SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT); diff --git a/include/linux/inotify.h b/include/linux/inotify.h index 6a24905f6e1e..88fc82c8cf2a 100644 --- a/include/linux/inotify.h +++ b/include/linux/inotify.h @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ extern struct ctl_table inotify_table[]; /* for sysctl */ #define ALL_INOTIFY_BITS (IN_ACCESS | IN_MODIFY | IN_ATTRIB | IN_CLOSE_WRITE | \ IN_CLOSE_NOWRITE | IN_OPEN | IN_MOVED_FROM | \ IN_MOVED_TO | IN_CREATE | IN_DELETE | \ - IN_DELETE_SELF | IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_UNMOUNT | \ + IN_DELETE_SELF | IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_OPEN_EXEC | IN_UNMOUNT | \ IN_Q_OVERFLOW | IN_IGNORED | IN_ONLYDIR | \ IN_DONT_FOLLOW | IN_EXCL_UNLINK | IN_MASK_ADD | \ IN_MASK_CREATE | IN_ISDIR | IN_ONESHOT) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h b/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h index 884b4846b630..f19ea046cc87 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct inotify_event { #define IN_DELETE 0x00000200 /* Subfile was deleted */ #define IN_DELETE_SELF 0x00000400 /* Self was deleted */ #define IN_MOVE_SELF 0x00000800 /* Self was moved */ +#define IN_OPEN_EXEC 0x00001000 /* File was opened */ /* the following are legal events. they are sent as needed to any watch */ #define IN_UNMOUNT 0x00002000 /* Backing fs was unmounted */ @@ -66,7 +67,7 @@ struct inotify_event { #define IN_ALL_EVENTS (IN_ACCESS | IN_MODIFY | IN_ATTRIB | IN_CLOSE_WRITE | \ IN_CLOSE_NOWRITE | IN_OPEN | IN_MOVED_FROM | \ IN_MOVED_TO | IN_DELETE | IN_CREATE | IN_DELETE_SELF | \ - IN_MOVE_SELF) + IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_OPEN_EXEC) /* Flags for sys_inotify_init1. */ #define IN_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC -- 2.18.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event 2020-09-14 17:27 [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event Weiping Zhang @ 2020-09-15 7:08 ` Jan Kara 2020-09-15 8:33 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2020-09-15 7:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Weiping Zhang; +Cc: jack, amir73il, linux-fsdevel On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for inotify... Honza > --- > fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c | 3 ++- > include/linux/inotify.h | 2 +- > include/uapi/linux/inotify.h | 3 ++- > 3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c > index 186722ba3894..eb42d11a9988 100644 > --- a/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c > +++ b/fs/notify/inotify/inotify_user.c > @@ -819,8 +819,9 @@ static int __init inotify_user_setup(void) > BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_EXCL_UNLINK != FS_EXCL_UNLINK); > BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_ISDIR != FS_ISDIR); > BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_ONESHOT != FS_IN_ONESHOT); > + BUILD_BUG_ON(IN_OPEN_EXEC != FS_OPEN_EXEC); > > - BUILD_BUG_ON(HWEIGHT32(ALL_INOTIFY_BITS) != 22); > + BUILD_BUG_ON(HWEIGHT32(ALL_INOTIFY_BITS) != 23); > > inotify_inode_mark_cachep = KMEM_CACHE(inotify_inode_mark, > SLAB_PANIC|SLAB_ACCOUNT); > diff --git a/include/linux/inotify.h b/include/linux/inotify.h > index 6a24905f6e1e..88fc82c8cf2a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/inotify.h > +++ b/include/linux/inotify.h > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ extern struct ctl_table inotify_table[]; /* for sysctl */ > #define ALL_INOTIFY_BITS (IN_ACCESS | IN_MODIFY | IN_ATTRIB | IN_CLOSE_WRITE | \ > IN_CLOSE_NOWRITE | IN_OPEN | IN_MOVED_FROM | \ > IN_MOVED_TO | IN_CREATE | IN_DELETE | \ > - IN_DELETE_SELF | IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_UNMOUNT | \ > + IN_DELETE_SELF | IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_OPEN_EXEC | IN_UNMOUNT | \ > IN_Q_OVERFLOW | IN_IGNORED | IN_ONLYDIR | \ > IN_DONT_FOLLOW | IN_EXCL_UNLINK | IN_MASK_ADD | \ > IN_MASK_CREATE | IN_ISDIR | IN_ONESHOT) > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h b/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h > index 884b4846b630..f19ea046cc87 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/inotify.h > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct inotify_event { > #define IN_DELETE 0x00000200 /* Subfile was deleted */ > #define IN_DELETE_SELF 0x00000400 /* Self was deleted */ > #define IN_MOVE_SELF 0x00000800 /* Self was moved */ > +#define IN_OPEN_EXEC 0x00001000 /* File was opened */ > > /* the following are legal events. they are sent as needed to any watch */ > #define IN_UNMOUNT 0x00002000 /* Backing fs was unmounted */ > @@ -66,7 +67,7 @@ struct inotify_event { > #define IN_ALL_EVENTS (IN_ACCESS | IN_MODIFY | IN_ATTRIB | IN_CLOSE_WRITE | \ > IN_CLOSE_NOWRITE | IN_OPEN | IN_MOVED_FROM | \ > IN_MOVED_TO | IN_DELETE | IN_CREATE | IN_DELETE_SELF | \ > - IN_MOVE_SELF) > + IN_MOVE_SELF | IN_OPEN_EXEC) > > /* Flags for sys_inotify_init1. */ > #define IN_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC > -- > 2.18.2 > -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event 2020-09-15 7:08 ` Jan Kara @ 2020-09-15 8:33 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-09-15 12:09 ` Weiping Zhang 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2020-09-15 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Weiping Zhang, linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > inotify... That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): 1. Rename cookie (*) 2. System tunables for limits The question is - should I pursue it? You asked about incentive to use feature parity fanotify and not intotify. One answer is the ignored mask. It may be a useful feature to some. But mostly, using the same interface for both priv and unpriv is convenient for developers and it is convenient for kernel maintainers. I'd like to be able to make the statement that inotify code is maintained in bug fixes only mode, which has mostly been the reality for a long time. But in order to be able to say "no reason to add IN_OPEN_EXEC", we do need to stand behind the feature parity with intotify. So I apologize to Weiping for hijacking his thread, but I think we should get our plans declared before deciding on IN_OPEN_EXEC, because whether there is a valid use case for non-priv user who needs IN_OPEN_EXEC event is not the main issue IMO. Even if there isn't, we need an answer for the next proposed inotify feature that does have a non-priv user use case. Thanks, Amir. [1] https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_unpriv [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20181114135744.GB20704@quack2.suse.cz/ (*) I got an internal complaint about missing the rename cookie with FAN_REPORT_NAME, so I had to carry a small patch internally. The problem is not that the rename cookie is really needed, but that without the rename cookie, events can be re-ordered across renames and that can generate some non-deterministic event sequences. So I am thinking of keeping the rename cookie in the kernel event just for no-merge indication and then userspace can use object fid to match MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event 2020-09-15 8:33 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2020-09-15 12:09 ` Weiping Zhang 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Weiping Zhang @ 2020-09-15 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Jan Kara, Weiping Zhang, linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:34 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > inotify... > fanotify meets my requirement, thanks. > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > 1. Rename cookie (*) > 2. System tunables for limits > > The question is - should I pursue it? > > You asked about incentive to use feature parity fanotify and not intotify. > One answer is the ignored mask. It may be a useful feature to some. > > But mostly, using the same interface for both priv and unpriv is convenient > for developers and it is convenient for kernel maintainers. > I'd like to be able to make the statement that inotify code is maintained in > bug fixes only mode, which has mostly been the reality for a long time. > But in order to be able to say "no reason to add IN_OPEN_EXEC", we > do need to stand behind the feature parity with intotify. > > So I apologize to Weiping for hijacking his thread, but I think we should > get our plans declared before deciding on IN_OPEN_EXEC, because > whether there is a valid use case for non-priv user who needs IN_OPEN_EXEC > event is not the main issue IMO. Even if there isn't, we need an answer for > the next proposed inotify feature that does have a non-priv user use case. > > Thanks, > Amir. > > [1] https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_unpriv > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20181114135744.GB20704@quack2.suse.cz/ > > (*) I got an internal complaint about missing the rename cookie with > FAN_REPORT_NAME, so I had to carry a small patch internally. > The problem is not that the rename cookie is really needed, but that without > the rename cookie, events can be re-ordered across renames and that can > generate some non-deterministic event sequences. > > So I am thinking of keeping the rename cookie in the kernel event just for > no-merge indication and then userspace can use object fid to match > MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event 2020-09-15 8:33 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-09-15 12:09 ` Weiping Zhang @ 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara 2020-10-01 13:08 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein 2020-10-01 13:23 ` pairing FAN_MOVED_FROM/FAN_MOVED_TO events Amir Goldstein 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2020-10-01 11:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Jan Kara, Weiping Zhang, linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski I'm sorry for late reply on this one... On Tue 15-09-20 11:33:41, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > inotify... > > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > 1. Rename cookie (*) > 2. System tunables for limits > > The question is - should I pursue it? So I think that at this point some form less priviledged fanotify use starts to make sense. So let's discuss how it would look like... What comes to my mind: 1) We'd need to make max_user_instances, max_user_watches, and max_queued_events configurable similarly as for inotify. The first two using ucounts so that the configuration is actually per-namespace as for inotify. 2) I don't quite like the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag. I'd rather see the checks being done based on functionality requested in fanotify_init() / fanotify_mark(). E.g. FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE or permission events will require CAP_SYS_ADMIN, mount/sb marks will require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, etc. We should also consider which capability checks should be system-global and which can be just user-namespace ones... > You asked about incentive to use feature parity fanotify and not intotify. > One answer is the ignored mask. It may be a useful feature to some. > > But mostly, using the same interface for both priv and unpriv is convenient > for developers and it is convenient for kernel maintainers. I agree about userspace developers, for kernel I think that allowing unpriviledged fanotify has actually additional maintenance cost - all that additional code with limits & capability checks, larger attack surface available for unpriviledged tasks so more security scrutiny & CVE handling, etc. And we have to maintain inotify exactly as much as previously at least for the following decade, likely even longer. > I'd like to be able to make the statement that inotify code is maintained in > bug fixes only mode, which has mostly been the reality for a long time. Yes, I agree that inotify is in maintenance only mode. > But in order to be able to say "no reason to add IN_OPEN_EXEC", we > do need to stand behind the feature parity with intotify. > > So I apologize to Weiping for hijacking his thread, but I think we should > get our plans declared before deciding on IN_OPEN_EXEC, because > whether there is a valid use case for non-priv user who needs IN_OPEN_EXEC > event is not the main issue IMO. Even if there isn't, we need an answer for > the next proposed inotify feature that does have a non-priv user use case. Here I disagree. How I see it is that *if* there's real serious user for IN_OPEN_EXEC which cannot currently use FAN_OPEN_EXEC, we should either make FAN_OPEN_EXEC available to it or bite the bullet, do exception, and extend inotify. But the "if" part isn't currently true so I don't see IN_OPEN_EXEC query force us either way... > [1] https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fanotify_unpriv > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20181114135744.GB20704@quack2.suse.cz/ > > (*) I got an internal complaint about missing the rename cookie with > FAN_REPORT_NAME, so I had to carry a small patch internally. > The problem is not that the rename cookie is really needed, but that without > the rename cookie, events can be re-ordered across renames and that can > generate some non-deterministic event sequences. > > So I am thinking of keeping the rename cookie in the kernel event just for > no-merge indication and then userspace can use object fid to match > MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events. Well, the event sequences are always non-deterministic due to event merging. So I'm somewhat surprised that rename events particularly matter. I suspect the code relying on "determinism" is buggy, it just perhaps doesn't manifest in practice for other event types... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: FAN_UNPRIVILEGED 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara @ 2020-10-01 13:08 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-10-02 8:27 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Jan Kara 2020-10-01 13:23 ` pairing FAN_MOVED_FROM/FAN_MOVED_TO events Amir Goldstein 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-01 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > I'm sorry for late reply on this one... > > On Tue 15-09-20 11:33:41, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > > inotify... > > > > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > > 1. Rename cookie (*) > > 2. System tunables for limits > > > > The question is - should I pursue it? > > So I think that at this point some form less priviledged fanotify use > starts to make sense. So let's discuss how it would look like... What comes > to my mind: > > 1) We'd need to make max_user_instances, max_user_watches, and > max_queued_events configurable similarly as for inotify. The first two > using ucounts so that the configuration is actually per-namespace as for > inotify. > > 2) I don't quite like the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag. I'd rather see the checks > being done based on functionality requested in fanotify_init() / > fanotify_mark(). E.g. FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE or permission events will require > CAP_SYS_ADMIN, mount/sb marks will require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, etc. > We should also consider which capability checks should be system-global and > which can be just user-namespace ones... OK. That is not a problem to do. But FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag also impacts: An unprivileged event listener does not get an open file descriptor in the event nor the process pid of another process. Obviously, I can check CAP_SYS_ADMIN on fanotify_init() and set the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag as an internal flag. The advantage of explicit FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag is that a privileged process can create an unprivileged listener and pass the fd to another process. Not a critical functionality at this point. Thoughts? Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: FAN_UNPRIVILEGED 2020-10-01 13:08 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-02 8:27 ` Jan Kara 2020-10-02 9:06 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2020-10-02 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Jan Kara, linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Thu 01-10-20 16:08:50, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > I'm sorry for late reply on this one... > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 11:33:41, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > > > inotify... > > > > > > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > > > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > > > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > > > 1. Rename cookie (*) > > > 2. System tunables for limits > > > > > > The question is - should I pursue it? > > > > So I think that at this point some form less priviledged fanotify use > > starts to make sense. So let's discuss how it would look like... What comes > > to my mind: > > > > 1) We'd need to make max_user_instances, max_user_watches, and > > max_queued_events configurable similarly as for inotify. The first two > > using ucounts so that the configuration is actually per-namespace as for > > inotify. > > > > 2) I don't quite like the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag. I'd rather see the checks > > being done based on functionality requested in fanotify_init() / > > fanotify_mark(). E.g. FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE or permission events will require > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN, mount/sb marks will require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, etc. > > We should also consider which capability checks should be system-global and > > which can be just user-namespace ones... > > OK. That is not a problem to do. > But FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag also impacts: > > An unprivileged event listener does not get an open file descriptor in > the event nor the process pid of another process. Well, are these really sensitive that they should be forbidden? If we allow only inode marks and given inode is opened in the context of process reading the event, I don't see how fd would be any sensitive? And similarly for pid I'd say... > Obviously, I can check CAP_SYS_ADMIN on fanotify_init() and set the > FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag as an internal flag. > > The advantage of explicit FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag is that a privileged process > can create an unprivileged listener and pass the fd to another process. > Not a critical functionality at this point. I'd prefer to keep the flag internal if you're convinced we need one - but I'm not yet convinced we need even internal FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag because I don't think this will end up being a yes/no thing. I imagine that depending on exact process capabilities, different kinds of fanotify functionality will be allowed as I outlined in 2). So we'll be checking against current process capabilities at the time of action and not against some internal fanotify flag... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: FAN_UNPRIVILEGED 2020-10-02 8:27 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Jan Kara @ 2020-10-02 9:06 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-10-02 9:51 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Jan Kara 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-02 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > On Thu 01-10-20 16:08:50, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > I'm sorry for late reply on this one... > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 11:33:41, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > > > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > > > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > > > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > > > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > > > > inotify... > > > > > > > > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > > > > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > > > > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > > > > 1. Rename cookie (*) > > > > 2. System tunables for limits > > > > > > > > The question is - should I pursue it? > > > > > > So I think that at this point some form less priviledged fanotify use > > > starts to make sense. So let's discuss how it would look like... What comes > > > to my mind: > > > > > > 1) We'd need to make max_user_instances, max_user_watches, and > > > max_queued_events configurable similarly as for inotify. The first two > > > using ucounts so that the configuration is actually per-namespace as for > > > inotify. > > > > > > 2) I don't quite like the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag. I'd rather see the checks > > > being done based on functionality requested in fanotify_init() / > > > fanotify_mark(). E.g. FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE or permission events will require > > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN, mount/sb marks will require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, etc. > > > We should also consider which capability checks should be system-global and > > > which can be just user-namespace ones... > > > > OK. That is not a problem to do. > > But FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag also impacts: > > > > An unprivileged event listener does not get an open file descriptor in > > the event nor the process pid of another process. > > Well, are these really sensitive that they should be forbidden? If we allow > only inode marks and given inode is opened in the context of process > reading the event, I don't see how fd would be any sensitive? And similarly > for pid I'd say... > Because I was under the impression that we are going to allow a dir watch on children, just like inotify and process may have permission to access dir, but no permission to open a child. That said, it's true that we can decide whether or not to export a RDONLY open fd based on CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH of the reader process. Regarding exposing pid, I am not familiar with the capabilities required to "spy" on another process' actions using other facilities, so I thought we should take a conservative approach and require at least CAP_SYS_PTRACE to expose information about the process generating the event. > > Obviously, I can check CAP_SYS_ADMIN on fanotify_init() and set the > > FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag as an internal flag. > > > > The advantage of explicit FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag is that a privileged process > > can create an unprivileged listener and pass the fd to another process. > > Not a critical functionality at this point. > > I'd prefer to keep the flag internal if you're convinced we need one - but > I'm not yet convinced we need even internal FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag because > I don't think this will end up being a yes/no thing. I imagine that > depending on exact process capabilities, different kinds of fanotify > functionality will be allowed as I outlined in 2). So we'll be checking > against current process capabilities at the time of action and not against > some internal fanotify flag... Fair enough. I take a swing at getting rid of the flag entirely. It may take me a while though to context switch back to fanotify. Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: FAN_UNPRIVILEGED 2020-10-02 9:06 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-02 9:51 ` Jan Kara 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jan Kara @ 2020-10-02 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Jan Kara, linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski On Fri 02-10-20 12:06:48, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:27 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > On Thu 01-10-20 16:08:50, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:00 PM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm sorry for late reply on this one... > > > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 11:33:41, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:08 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue 15-09-20 01:27:43, Weiping Zhang wrote: > > > > > > > Now the IN_OPEN event can report all open events for a file, but it can > > > > > > > not distinguish if the file was opened for execute or read/write. > > > > > > > This patch add a new event IN_OPEN_EXEC to support that. If user only > > > > > > > want to monitor a file was opened for execute, they can pass a more > > > > > > > precise event IN_OPEN_EXEC to inotify_add_watch. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Weiping Zhang <zhangweiping@didiglobal.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch but what I'm missing is a justification for it. Is > > > > > > there any application that cannot use fanotify that needs to distinguish > > > > > > IN_OPEN and IN_OPEN_EXEC? The OPEN_EXEC notification is for rather > > > > > > specialized purposes (e.g. audit) which are generally priviledged and need > > > > > > to use fanotify anyway so I don't see this as an interesting feature for > > > > > > inotify... > > > > > > > > > > That would be my queue to re- bring up FAN_UNPRIVILEGED [1]. > > > > > Last time this was discussed [2], FAN_UNPRIVILEGED did not have > > > > > feature parity with inotify, but now it mostly does, short of (AFAIK): > > > > > 1. Rename cookie (*) > > > > > 2. System tunables for limits > > > > > > > > > > The question is - should I pursue it? > > > > > > > > So I think that at this point some form less priviledged fanotify use > > > > starts to make sense. So let's discuss how it would look like... What comes > > > > to my mind: > > > > > > > > 1) We'd need to make max_user_instances, max_user_watches, and > > > > max_queued_events configurable similarly as for inotify. The first two > > > > using ucounts so that the configuration is actually per-namespace as for > > > > inotify. > > > > > > > > 2) I don't quite like the FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag. I'd rather see the checks > > > > being done based on functionality requested in fanotify_init() / > > > > fanotify_mark(). E.g. FAN_UNLIMITED_QUEUE or permission events will require > > > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN, mount/sb marks will require CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH, etc. > > > > We should also consider which capability checks should be system-global and > > > > which can be just user-namespace ones... > > > > > > OK. That is not a problem to do. > > > But FAN_UNPRIVILEDGED flag also impacts: > > > > > > An unprivileged event listener does not get an open file descriptor in > > > the event nor the process pid of another process. > > > > Well, are these really sensitive that they should be forbidden? If we allow > > only inode marks and given inode is opened in the context of process > > reading the event, I don't see how fd would be any sensitive? And similarly > > for pid I'd say... > > > > Because I was under the impression that we are going to allow a dir watch > on children, just like inotify and process may have permission to access dir, > but no permission to open a child. Right, I agree FAN_EVENT_ON_CHILD should be allowed with less priviledge as well. But can't we just check for 'x' permission on parent dir when generating event to task that does not have CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH and may_open() after that? We have all info available when handling FAN_EVENT_ON_CHILD events AFAICT... > That said, it's true that we can decide whether or not to export a RDONLY > open fd based on CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH of the reader process. Or that but I guess may_open() check may be still needed... > Regarding exposing pid, I am not familiar with the capabilities required to > "spy" on another process' actions using other facilities, so I thought we > should take a conservative approach and require at least CAP_SYS_PTRACE > to expose information about the process generating the event. Anybody can learn PID of a process in his own namespace. So PID itself is not secret. The fact that someone accessed a file is no secret either (you can poll atime / mtime). The fact that a particular process accessed a particular file - well, that's revealing something. Not sure whether it is relevant but I guess let's be cautious, we can always relax this later. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@suse.com> SUSE Labs, CR ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pairing FAN_MOVED_FROM/FAN_MOVED_TO events 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara 2020-10-01 13:08 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-01 13:23 ` Amir Goldstein 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2020-10-01 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, Matthew Bobrowski > > (*) I got an internal complaint about missing the rename cookie with > > FAN_REPORT_NAME, so I had to carry a small patch internally. > > The problem is not that the rename cookie is really needed, but that without > > the rename cookie, events can be re-ordered across renames and that can > > generate some non-deterministic event sequences. > > > > So I am thinking of keeping the rename cookie in the kernel event just for > > no-merge indication and then userspace can use object fid to match > > MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events. > > Well, the event sequences are always non-deterministic due to event > merging. So I'm somewhat surprised that rename events particularly matter. > I suspect the code relying on "determinism" is buggy, it just perhaps > doesn't manifest in practice for other event types... > Maybe I did not explain the issue correctly. The use case is matching pairs of MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events, regardless of re-ordering with other event types. In inotify, both those events carry a unique cookie, so they are never merged with any other event type. The events themselves have the same cookie but differ in filename, so are not merged. In vfs code, fsnotify_move() is called under lock_rename() so: 1. Cross-parent MOVED event pairs are fully serialized 2. Same-parent MOVED event pairs are serialized in each parent... 3. ... but may be interleaved with MOVED event pairs in other parents 4. Subsequent MOVED event pairs of the same object are also serialized per moved object The rules above apply to fanotify MOVED events as well, but in fanotify, because cookie is not stored in event and not participating in merge, the MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events can be merged with other event types and therefore re-ordered amongst themselves. Our userspace service needs to be able to match MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO event pairs for several reasons and I believe this is quite a common need. This need is regardless of re-ordering the MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO event pair with other events such as CREATE/DELETE. To mention a concrete example, if listener can reliably match a MOVED pair and the DFID/FID object is found locally in the MOVED_TO name, then a remote command to the backup destination to rename from the MOVED_FROM name can be attempted. All we need to do in order to allow for fanotify listeners to use DFID/FID to match MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO interleaved event pairs is to NOT merge MOVED events with other event types if group has all these flags (FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME | FAN_REPORT_FID). IMO, there is not much to lose with this minor change in event merge condition and there is much to gain. The documentation is a bit more tricky, but it is generally sufficient to document that MOVED_FROM/MOVED_TO events on the same object (FID) are not re-ordered amongst themselves with respective group flag combination. Do you agree? Thanks, Amir. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-02 9:51 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-09-14 17:27 [RFC PATCH] inotify: add support watch open exec event Weiping Zhang 2020-09-15 7:08 ` Jan Kara 2020-09-15 8:33 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-09-15 12:09 ` Weiping Zhang 2020-10-01 11:00 ` Jan Kara 2020-10-01 13:08 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein 2020-10-02 8:27 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Jan Kara 2020-10-02 9:06 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Amir Goldstein 2020-10-02 9:51 ` FAN_UNPRIVILEGED Jan Kara 2020-10-01 13:23 ` pairing FAN_MOVED_FROM/FAN_MOVED_TO events Amir Goldstein
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).