From: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@suse.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Johansen <jjohansen@suse.de>,
Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>, Erez Zadok <ezk@cs.sunysb.edu>,
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [RFC 04/10] Temporary struct vfs_lookup in file_permission
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:41:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200708082341.06329.agruen@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070808192558.GA28278@infradead.org>
On Wednesday 08 August 2007 21:25, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:16:26PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > Create a temporary struct vfs_lookup in file_permission() instead of
> > passing a NULL value.
>
> NACK. file_permission is special in that it doesn't happen in the
> context of any kind of lookup operation, and the nd/intent paramater
> to ->permission should be NULL in that case instead of faking up some crap.
Lookup or not doesn't actually matter. Think of fchdir(2): it does a
permission check, and it should also pass down the LOOKUP_CHDIR flag. (Yes I
know, it doesn't do that right now. Bug.) I can't think of a better example
right now, but the intent does not only make sense in lookup context.
It's true that filesystems should never touch vfsmnts -- except for a few rare
exceptions. Filesystem stacking is one. NFS silly-rename is another: if the
vfsmnt of the object being silly-renamed were passed down to the file system,
we would mntget() it. Right now there is a reference counting bug that allows
to blow up the kernel by unmounting that mount point before the silly-renamed
file is closed. (It's client-side only of course, but still.) The vfsmnt that
this patch passes down in file_permission() is not some crap as you chose to
call it, it's the appropriate vfsmnt.
Last but not least, file_permission() is a vfs function not a filesystem
operation. It indirectly calls into security_inode_permission(). We need the
vfsmnt there for path-based LSMs, for operations like fchmod(2). But that's a
different set of patches, and a different discussion.
Thanks,
Andreas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-08 21:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-08 17:16 [RFC 00/10] Split up struct nameidata (take 3) Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 01/10] Split up struct nameidata Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 19:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-09 8:26 ` atomic open (was Re: [RFC 01/10] Split up struct nameidata) Miklos Szeredi
2007-08-10 14:42 ` [RFC 01/10] Split up struct nameidata Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-10 14:22 ` [patch 1/4] Introduce pathput Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-29 19:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-09-14 16:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-10 14:22 ` [patch 2/4] Use pathput in a few more places Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-29 19:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-30 15:01 ` [FIX] mntput called before dput in afs Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-30 15:15 ` David Howells
2007-08-30 15:56 ` David Howells
2007-08-10 14:22 ` [patch 3/4] Introduce pathget Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-29 19:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-10 14:22 ` [patch 4/4] Switch to struct path in fs_struct Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-29 19:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 02/10] Switch from nd->{mnt,dentry} to nd->lookup.path.{mnt,dentry} Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 03/10] Pass no unnecessary information to iop->permission Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 04/10] Temporary struct vfs_lookup in file_permission Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:58 ` Josef Sipek
2007-08-08 18:56 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 19:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-08 21:41 ` Andreas Gruenbacher [this message]
2007-08-08 23:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-09 17:23 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 05/10] Use vfs_permission instead of file_permission in sys_fchdir Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 19:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 06/10] Use vfs_permission instead of file_permission in do_path_lookup Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 19:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 07/10] Pass no unnecessary information to iop->create Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 08/10] Pass no NULL vfs_lookup to vfs_create Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 19:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 09/10] Pass no unnecessary information to dop->d_revalidate Andreas Gruenbacher
2007-08-08 17:16 ` [RFC 10/10] Pass no unnecessary information to iop->lookup Andreas Gruenbacher
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=200708082341.06329.agruen@suse.de \
--to=agruen@suse.de \
--cc=ezk@cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jblunck@suse.de \
--cc=jjohansen@suse.de \
--cc=jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@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