Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] namei: O_BENEATH-style path resolution flags

From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: 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>,
	Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
	David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	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>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
	containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] namei: O_BENEATH-style path resolution flags
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 20:57:45 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190712105745.nruaftgeat6irhzr@yavin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712043341.GI17978@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

On 2019-07-12, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2019 at 12:57:32AM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> > @@ -1442,8 +1464,11 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >  	struct inode *inode = nd->inode;
> >  
> >  	while (1) {
> > -		if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root))
> > +		if (path_equal(&nd->path, &nd->root)) {
> > +			if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH))
> > +				return -EXDEV;
> 
> > @@ -1468,6 +1493,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >  				return -ECHILD;
> >  			if (&mparent->mnt == nd->path.mnt)
> >  				break;
> > +			if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_XDEV))
> > +				return -EXDEV;
> >  			/* we know that mountpoint was pinned */
> >  			nd->path.dentry = mountpoint;
> >  			nd->path.mnt = &mparent->mnt;
> > @@ -1482,6 +1509,8 @@ static int follow_dotdot_rcu(struct nameidata *nd)
> >  			return -ECHILD;
> >  		if (!mounted)
> >  			break;
> > +		if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_XDEV))
> > +			return -EXDEV;
> 
> Are you sure these failure exits in follow_dotdot_rcu() won't give
> suprious hard errors?

I could switch to -ECHILD for the *_rcu() checks if you'd prefer that.
Though, I'd have (probably naively) thought that you'd have already
gotten -ECHILD from the seqlock checks if there was a race during ".."
handling.

> > +	if (unlikely(nd->flags & LOOKUP_BENEATH)) {
> > +		error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> > +		if (unlikely(error))
> > +			return ERR_PTR(error);
> > +		nd->root = nd->path;
> > +		if (!(nd->flags & LOOKUP_RCU))
> > +			path_get(&nd->root);
> > +	}
> >  	if (*s == '/') {
> >  		if (likely(!nd->root.mnt))
> >  			set_root(nd);
> > @@ -2350,9 +2400,11 @@ static const char *path_init(struct nameidata *nd, unsigned flags)
> >  			s = ERR_PTR(error);
> >  		return s;
> >  	}
> > -	error = dirfd_path_init(nd);
> > -	if (unlikely(error))
> > -		return ERR_PTR(error);
> > +	if (likely(!nd->path.mnt)) {
> 
> Is that a weird way of saying "if we hadn't already called dirfd_path_init()"?

Yes. I did it to be more consistent with the other "have we got the
root" checks elsewhere. Is there another way you'd prefer I do it?

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

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