From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk@gmx.de>,
Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fanotify: check permissions when creating file descriptor
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:07:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140422140747.GF366@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkh=Shj6UO6x_KieQEYUoY+guokNute0iwUfiSYFJbeTfQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue 22-04-14 15:50:26, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Sat 19-04-14 22:53:53, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> When monitoring a directory or a mount with the fanotify API
> >> the call to fanotify_init checks,
> >> * the process has cap_sys_admin capability
> >>
> >> The call to fanotify_mark checks,
> >> * the process has read authorization for directory or mount
> >>
> >> A directory or mount may contain files for which the process
> >> has no read or write authorization.
> >> Yet when reading from the fanotify file descriptor, structures
> >> fanotify_event_metadata are returned, which contain a file
> >> descriptor for these files, and will allow to read or write.
> >>
> >> The patch adds an authorization check for read and write
> >> permission. In case of missing permission, reading from the
> >> fanotify file descriptor returns EACCES.
> > OK, am I right you are concerned about a situation where fanotify group
> > descriptor is passed to an unpriviledged process which handles all the
> > incoming events? I'm asking because the permission checking can be
> > relatively expensive (think of acls) so we better do it for a reason.
> > I'd prefer to hear from Eric what the original intention regarding
> > permissions was...
>
> If I understand correctly, passing to an unprivileged process is the
> point. The point is I think that supposedly one only needs to
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN to use fanotify. However, once you have that capability,
> then you implicitly get the effect of CAP_DAC_READ_SEARCH and
> CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE as well.
Ah, OK. Thanks for explanation. Then I'm OK with the patch. So feel free
to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Honza
> >> fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> >> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> >> index 4e565c8..5d22a20 100644
> >> --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> >> +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c
> >> @@ -62,6 +62,8 @@ static int create_fd(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> >> {
> >> int client_fd;
> >> struct file *new_file;
> >> + int mask;
> >> + int ret;
> >>
> >> pr_debug("%s: group=%p event=%p\n", __func__, group, event);
> >>
> >> @@ -75,11 +77,19 @@ static int create_fd(struct fsnotify_group *group,
> >> */
> >> /* it's possible this event was an overflow event. in that case dentry and mnt
> >> * are NULL; That's fine, just don't call dentry open */
> >> - if (event->path.dentry && event->path.mnt)
> >> - new_file = dentry_open(&event->path,
> >> - group->fanotify_data.f_flags | FMODE_NONOTIFY,
> >> - current_cred());
> >> - else
> >> + if (event->path.dentry && event->path.mnt) {
> >> + /* check permissions before granting access to file */
> >> + mask = MAY_READ;
> >> + if (group->fanotify_data.f_flags & (O_RDWR | O_WRONLY))
> >> + mask |= MAY_WRITE;
> >> + ret = inode_permission(event->path.dentry->d_inode, mask);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + new_file = ERR_PTR(ret);
> >> + else
> >> + new_file = dentry_open(&event->path,
> >> + group->fanotify_data.f_flags | FMODE_NONOTIFY,
> >> + current_cred());
> >> + } else
> >> new_file = ERR_PTR(-EOVERFLOW);
> >> if (IS_ERR(new_file)) {
> >> /*
> >> --
> >> 1.9.1
> >>
> > --
> > Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > SUSE Labs, CR
>
>
>
> --
> Michael Kerrisk
> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
> Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-22 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-19 20:53 [PATCH 1/1] fanotify: check permissions when creating file descriptor Heinrich Schuchardt
2014-04-22 13:40 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-22 13:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-22 13:52 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-22 14:07 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2014-04-22 20:51 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2014-04-24 10:01 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-24 9:04 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-24 13:54 ` Heinrich Schuchardt
2014-04-24 15:05 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-04-24 16:05 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-24 16:14 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
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=20140422140747.GF366@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=xypron.glpk@gmx.de \
/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