Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH v3 5/6] fuse: Add a flag FUSE_OPEN_KILL_PRIV for open() request

[Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:33:00PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:00 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 02:55:11PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 8:16 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With FUSE_HANDLE_KILLPRIV_V2 support, server will need to kill
> > > > suid/sgid/security.capability on open(O_TRUNC), if server supports
> > > > FUSE_ATOMIC_O_TRUNC.
> > > >
> > > > But server needs to kill suid/sgid only if caller does not have
> > > > CAP_FSETID. Given server does not have this information, client
> > > > needs to send this info to server.
> > > >
> > > > So add a flag FUSE_OPEN_KILL_PRIV to fuse_open_in request which tells
> > > > server to kill suid/sgid(only if group execute is set).
> > >
> > > This is needed for FUSE_CREATE as well (which may act as a normal open
> > > in case the file exists, and no O_EXCL was specified), right?
> >
> > Hi Miklos,
> >
> > IIUC, In current code we seem to use FUSE_CREATE only if file does not exist.
> > If file exists, then we probably will take FUSE_OPEN path.
> 
> That's true if the cache is up to date, one important point for
> FUSE_CREATE is that it works atomically even if the cache is stale.
> So if cache is negative and we send a FUSE_CREATE it may still open an
> *existing* file, and we want to do suid/caps clearing in that case
> also, no?

Yes, makes sense. This can happen in a race condition also where
fuse_lookup_name() gets a negative dentry and then another client
creates file (with setuid/setgid/caps) set. Now fuse_create_open()
is called without O_EXCL and in that case we should remove
setuid/setgid/caps as needed. 

So yes, please make modifications accordingly for FUSE_CREATE. If you
want me to do make those changes, please let me know.

Thanks
Vivek