Re: [PATCH v6] backing_file: store user_path_file

[Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 10:54 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 12:47 AM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 9:13 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Instead of storing the user_path, store an O_PATH file for the
> > > user_path with the original user file creds and a security context.
> > >
> > > The user_path_file is only exported as a const pointer and its refcnt
> > > is initialized to FILE_REF_DEAD, because it is not a refcounted object.
> > >
> > > The file_ref_init() helper was changed to accept the FILE_REF_ constant
> > > instead of the fake +1 integer count.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Christian,
> > >
> > > My v5 patch was sent by Paul along with his LSM/selinux pataches [1].
> > > Here are the changes you requested.
> > >
> > > I removed the ACKs and Tested-by because of the changes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Amir.
> > >
> > > Changes since v5:
> > > - Restore file_ref_init() helper without refcnt -1 offset
> > > - Future proofing errors from backing_file_open_user_path()
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260316213606.374109-6-paul@paul-moore.com/
> > >
> > >  fs/backing-file.c            | 26 ++++++++++--------
> > >  fs/erofs/ishare.c            | 13 +++++++--
> > >  fs/file_table.c              | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > >  fs/fuse/passthrough.c        |  3 +-
> > >  fs/internal.h                |  5 ++--
> > >  fs/overlayfs/dir.c           |  3 +-
> > >  fs/overlayfs/file.c          |  1 +
> > >  include/linux/backing-file.h | 29 ++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  include/linux/file_ref.h     |  4 +--
> > >  9 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> > Still works for me.  I'm going to update lsm/stable-7.0 with this
> > patch so we can get some more linux-next testing.
> >
> > Tested-by: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
> >
>
> Paul,
>
> As you saw, syzbot found a nasty bug in this patch and it is too hard
> to fix it without introducing more hazards.
>
> Therefore, per Christian's request I am withdrawing this patch.
>
> Please see compile tested alternative solution for selinux without
> intrusive vfs change at:
> https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/user_path_file/

Let's let this thread die in favor of the other.  I'll already
commented there, but the quick summary is that pushing the ugliness
into an individual LSM, or the LSM framework itself, is not a
solution.

-- 
paul-moore.com