Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] openat2: minor uapi cleanups

Aleksa Sarai
2020-01-18T23:03:40Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2853 bytes --]

On 2020-01-18, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 03:28:33PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > #work.openat2 updated, #for-next rebuilt and force-pushed. There's
> > a massive update of #work.namei as well, also pushed out; not in
> > #for-next yet, will post the patch series for review later today.
>
> BTW, looking through that code again, how could this
> static bool legitimize_root(struct nameidata *nd)
> {
> /*
> * For scoped-lookups (where nd->root has been zeroed), we need to
> * restart the whole lookup from scratch -- because set_root() is wrong
> * for these lookups (nd->dfd is the root, not the filesystem root).
> */
> if (!nd->root.mnt && (nd->flags & LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED))
> return false;
>
> possibly trigger? The only things that ever clean ->root.mnt are

You're quite right -- the codepath I was worried about was pick_link()
failing (which *does* clear nd->path.mnt, and I must've misread it at
the time as nd->root.mnt).

We can drop this check, though now complete_walk()'s main defence
against a NULL nd->root.mnt is that path_is_under() will fail and
trigger -EXDEV (or set_root() will fail at some point in the future).
However, as you pointed out, a NULL nd->root.mnt won't happen with
things as they stand today -- I might be a little too paranoid. :P

> This is really, really fundamental for understanding the whole
> thing - a failure of unlazy_walk/unlazy_child means that we are through
> with that attempt.

Yup -- see above, the worry was about pick_link() not about how the
RCU-walk and REF-walk dances operate.

> The same, BTW, goes for the check you've added in the beginning of
> set_root() - set_root() is called only with NULL nd->root.mnt (trivial to
> prove) and that is incompatible with LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED. I'm kinda-sorta
> OK with having WARN_ON() there for a while, but IMO the check in the
> beginning of legitimize_root() should go away -

You're quite right about dropping the legitimize_root() check, but I'd
like to keep the WARN_ON() in set_root(). The main reason being that it
makes us very damn sure that a future change won't accidentally break
the nd->root contract which all of the LOOKUP_IS_SCOPED changes rely on.
Then again, this might be my paranoia popping up again.

> this kind of defensive programming only makes harder to reason about
> the behaviour of the entire thing. And fs/namei.c is too convoluted
> as it is...

If you feel that dropping some of these more defensive checks is better
for the codebase as a whole, then I defer to your judgement. I
completely agree that namei is a pretty complicated chunk of code.

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

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