linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: "J.Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - avoid permission checks on EXCLUSIVE_CREATE replay
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:16:31 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100423071631.27ff3a5a@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100422162533.GH5926@fieldses.org>

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:25:33 -0400
"J.Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:10:42AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > 
> > With NFSv4, if we create a file then open it we explicit avoid checking the
> > permissions on the file during the open because the fact that we created it
> > ensures we should be allow to open it (the create and the open should appear
> > to be a single operation).
> > 
> > However if the reply to an EXCLUSIVE create gets lots and the client resends
> > the create, the current code will perform the permission check - because it
> > doesn't realise that it did the open already..
> > 
> > This patch should fix this.
> 
> Thanks, but: hm, does this leave a loophole for a clever attacker?
> They'll still have to get past the initial
> 
> 	fh_verify(rqstp, fhp, S_IFDIR, NFSD_MAY_CREATE)
> 
> but that just checks the parent directory; if the existing file is
> actually owned by someone else, do we allow an open that we shouldn't?
> 
> Maybe when "created" is set we should keep the permission check but add
> NFSD_ALLOW_OWNER_OVERRIDE?
> 

I think that is possibly a good idea.  However......

commit 81ac95c5569d7a60ab5db6c1ccec56c12b3ebcb5
Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>
Date:   Wed Nov 8 17:44:40 2006 -0800

    [PATCH] nfsd4: fix open-create permissions
    
    In the case where an open creates the file, we shouldn't be rechecking
    permissions to open the file; the open succeeds regardless of what the new
    file's mode bits say.
    
    This patch fixes the problem, but only by introducing yet another parameter
    to nfsd_create_v3.  This is ugly.  This will be fixed by later patches.
    

I wouldn't want to get in the way of these 'later patches' that might be
going to remove the 'created' flag from nfsd_create_v3 :-)

NeilBrown

  reply	other threads:[~2010-04-22 21:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20100422101042.226f71d6@notabene.brown>
     [not found] ` <20100422101042.226f71d6-wvvUuzkyo1EYVZTmpyfIwg@public.gmane.org>
2010-04-22 16:25   ` [PATCH] - avoid permission checks on EXCLUSIVE_CREATE replay J.Bruce Fields
2010-04-22 21:16     ` Neil Brown [this message]
     [not found]       ` <20100423071631.27ff3a5a-wvvUuzkyo1EYVZTmpyfIwg@public.gmane.org>
2010-04-22 21:18         ` J.Bruce Fields
2012-12-07 22:50           ` J.Bruce Fields
2012-12-09 23:37             ` NeilBrown

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100423071631.27ff3a5a@notabene.brown \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).