Re: [PATCH v16 06/12] namei: LOOKUP_NO_XDEV: block mountpoint crossing

From: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, dev@opencontainers.org,
	Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 06/12] namei: LOOKUP_NO_XDEV: block mountpoint crossing
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:24:15 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191116172415.brmuonasi3ef6leg@yavin.dot.cyphar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191116010144.GY26530@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1589 bytes --]

On 2019-11-16, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:27:56AM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> 
> > @@ -1383,6 +1398,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >  				return -ECHILD;
> >  			if (&mparent->mnt == nd->path.mnt)
> >  				break;
> > +			if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_NO_XDEV))
> > +				return -EXDEV;
> >  			/* we know that mountpoint was pinned */
> >  			nd->path.dentry = mountpoint;
> >  			nd->path.mnt = &mparent->mnt;
> > @@ -1397,6 +1414,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >  			return -ECHILD;
> >  		if (!mounted)
> >  			break;
> > +		if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_NO_XDEV))
> > +			return -EXDEV;
> >  		nd->path.mnt = &mounted->mnt;
> >  		nd->path.dentry = mounted->mnt.mnt_root;
> >  		inode = nd->path.dentry->d_inode;
> 
> I really don't think we should return hard errors from that function.
> Let the caller redo it in refwalk mode.

I suspected as much, though my reason for not changing it was that the
mount_lock check should ensure that the cached status of whether ".." is
a mountpoint crossing is correct. But I guess this is more about being
safe than sorry, rather than an actual bug?

> It's not the fast path, especially for this kind of errors.  Matter of
> fact, I'm not sure about -ENOENT returned in another failure case
> there - it's probably OK, but again, -ECHILD would be just as good.

I can switch the -ENOENT too if you like.

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

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