From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:39168 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726887AbeH0XRR (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2018 19:17:17 -0400 Received: by mail-oi0-f65.google.com with SMTP id c190-v6so192571oig.6 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1535374564-8257-1-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <1535374564-8257-7-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <20180827185250.GB29056@redhat.com> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 21:29:19 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] ovl: add ovl_fadvise() To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Vivek Goyal , Al Viro , Dave Chinner , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:05 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:52 PM Vivek Goyal wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 03:56:04PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> > Implement stacked fadvise to fix syscalls readahead(2) and fadvise64(2) >> > on an overlayfs file. >> > >> > Suggested-by: Miklos Szeredi >> > Fixes: d1d04ef8572b ("ovl: stack file ops") >> > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein >> > --- >> > fs/overlayfs/file.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/file.c b/fs/overlayfs/file.c >> > index a4acd84591d4..42d2d034d85c 100644 >> > --- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c >> > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c >> > @@ -331,6 +331,23 @@ static long ovl_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len >> > return ret; >> > } >> > >> > +int ovl_fadvise(struct file *file, loff_t offset, loff_t len, int advice) >> > +{ >> > + struct fd real; >> > + int ret; >> > + >> > + ret = ovl_real_fdget(file, &real); >> > + if (ret) >> > + return ret; >> > + >> > + /* XXX: do we need mounter credentials? */ >> >> Given we are switching creds to mounter for rest of the file operations, >> so I would think we need to do it here as well to be consistent with >> this security model. >> > > Yeh, I guess so, although I did not see any security checks in > fadvise64(2) syscall. readahead(2) at least checks for FMODE_READ > on the open file fadvise doesn't even bother with that... > > Miklos, let me know if you want me to add override_creds or will > you add it yourself. I'll add it. Thanks, Miklos