Re: [PATCH 2/4] xfs: reject completely bogus remount options

Dave Chinner
2013-10-14T04:45:12Z

On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:42:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 10/13/13 4:52 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 02:11:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> There's a long comment about handling non-remountable
> >> options in xfs_fs_remount, but nothing addresses the case
> >> of completely bogus mount options at remount time, which
> >> can lead to some severe strangeness:
> >>
> >> # for I in `seq 1 10`; do mount -o remount,noacl /mnt/test2; done
> >> # for I in `seq 1 10`; do mount -o remount,badoption /mnt/test2; done
> >> # grep sdb4 /etc/mtab
> >> /dev/sdb4 /mnt/test2 xfs rw,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,noacl,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption,badoption 0 0
> >>
> >> This is a bit of a hack, but we can re-use xfs_parseargs()
> >> with a dummy mount struct to just vet all of the remount
> >> options which were passed in. With this, we get a saner
> >> result:
> >>
> >> [44898.102990] EXT4-fs (sdb4): Unrecognized mount option "badoption" or missing value
> >
> > ext4? Really? :)
>
>
> uhhh ;)
>
> >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> >> @@ -1202,11 +1202,25 @@ xfs_fs_remount(
> >> int *flags,
> >> char *options)
> >> {
> >> - struct xfs_mount *mp = XFS_M(sb);
> >> + struct xfs_mount *mp = XFS_M(sb), *dummy_mp;
> >> substring_t args[MAX_OPT_ARGS];
> >> char *p;
> >> int error;
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check all the mount options presented to be sure
> >> + * there's nothing too crazy in there. Non-remountable
> >> + * but valid options are a different issue.
> >> + */
> >> + dummy_mp = kmem_zalloc(sizeof(*dummy_mp), KM_MAYFAIL);
> >> + if (dummy_mp) {
> >> + dummy_mp->m_super = sb;
> >> + error = xfs_parseargs(dummy_mp, options);
> >> + kfree(dummy_mp);
> >> + if (error)
> >> + return -error;
> >
> > This, at minimum, leaks dummy_mp->m_fsname, and it will leak other
> > strings that are also kstrdup()d by xfs_parseargs().
>
> nnngh. Forgot about that side effect, sorry. Dammit.
>
> Think it's still worth doing this if I handle freeing them all up?

If you wrap it all in a helper function (xfs_check-args()?) that
does all the temporary structure allocation and freeing, I think
it will be fine.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com