From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Jenkins Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/34] vfs: syscall: Add fspick() to select a superblock for reconfiguration [ver #12] Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:45:01 +0100 Message-ID: <68a2107f-bf70-055b-86cf-1ba2ba9422bf@gmail.com> References: <153754740781.17872.7869536526927736855.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <153754766004.17872.9829232103614083565.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <9b8bf436-65de-13b9-0002-0479d11c18ca@gmail.com> <20181013061141.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181013061141.GR32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Cc: David Howells , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mszeredi@redhat.com List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 13/10/2018 07:11, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:49:50PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote: >>> +SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fspick, int, dfd, const char __user *, path, unsigned int, flags) >>> +{ >>> + struct fs_context *fc; >>> + struct path target; >>> + unsigned int lookup_flags; >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + if (!ns_capable(current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) >>> + return -EPERM; >> >> This seems to accept basically any mount.  Specifically: are you sure it's >> OK to return a handle to a SB_NO_USER superblock? > Umm... As long as we don't try to do pathname resolution from its ->s_root, > shouldn't be a problem and I don't see anything that would do that. I might've > missed something, but... Sorry, I guess SB_NOUSER was the wrong word.  I was trying find if anything stopped things like int memfd = memfd_create("foo", 0); int fsfd = fspick(memfd, "", FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH); fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "ro", NULL, 0); fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "size", "100M", 0); fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE, NULL, NULL, 0); So far I'm getting -EBUSY if I try to apply the "ro", -EINVAL if I try to apply the "size=100M".  But if I don't apply either, then FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE succeeds. It seems worrying that it might let me set options on shm_mnt. Or at least letting me get as far as the -EBUSY check for the "ro" superblock flag. I'm not sure why I'm getting the -EINVAL setting the "size" option.  But it would be much more reassuring if I was getting -EPERM :-). Alan