From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Waiman Long <llong@redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, audit@vger.kernel.org,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>,
Ricardo Robaina <rrobaina@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] audit: Avoid excessive dput/dget in audit_context setup and reset paths
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 20:29:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260206202933.GA3183987@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9bc83901-3819-4cf1-a1ba-cc2f52f53504@redhat.com>
On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 02:16:13PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > In all cases when we get to that point, new_fs is always a freshly
> > created private copy of current->fs, not reachable from anywhere
> > other than stack frames of the callers, but the proof is not pretty.
> > copy_mnt_ns() is called only by create_new_namespaces() and it gets to
> > copying anything if and only if CLONE_NEWNS is in the flags. So far,
> > so good. The call in create_new_namespaces() is
> > new_nsp->mnt_ns = copy_mnt_ns(flags, tsk->nsproxy->mnt_ns, user_ns, new_fs);
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. After further investigation as to while
> the pwd_refs is set, I found out the code path leading to this situation is
> the unshare syscall.
>
> __x64_sys_unshare()
> => ksys_unshare()
> => unshare_fs(unshare_flags, &new_fs)
> => unshare_nsproxy_namespaces(unshare_flags, &new_nsproxy,
> new_cred, new_fs);
> => create_new_namespaces(unshare_flags, current, user_ns,
> new_fs ? new_fs : current->fs);
>
> Here, CLONE_FS isn't set in unshare_flags. So new_fs is NULL and
> current->fs is passed down to create_new_namespaces(). That is why
> pwd_refs can be set in this case. So it looks like the comment in
> copy_mnt_ns() saying that the fs_struct is private is no longer true,
> at least in this case. So changing fs_struct without taking the lock
> can lead to unexpected result.
CLONE_FS is the red herring here (it will be set earlier in ksys_unshare()
if CLONE_NEWNS is there). I really hate that how convoluted that is,
though.
Look: the case where we might get passed current->fs down there is real.
It can happen in one and only one situation - CLONE_NEWNS in unshare(2)
arguments *and* current->fs->users being 1.
It wouldn't suffice, since there's chroot_fs_refs() that doesn't give
a rat's arse for task->fs being ours - it goes and replaces every
->fs->pwd or ->fs->root that happens to point to old_root.
It's still not a real race, though - both chroot_fs_refs() and that area
in copy_mnt_ns() are serialized on namespace_sem.
And yes, it's obscenely byzantine. It gets even worse when you consider
the fact that pivot_root(2) does not break only because the refcount
drops in chroot_fs_refs() are guaranteed not to reach 0 - the caller is
holding its own references to old_root.{mnt,dentry} and *thar* does not
get dropped until we drop namespace_sem.
IOW, that shit is actually safe, but man, has its correctness grown fucking
convoluted...
Grabbing fs->seq in copy_mnt_ns() wouldn't make the things better, though -
it seriously relies upon the same exclusion with chroot_fs_refs() for
correctness; unless you are willing to hold it over the entire walk through
the mount tree, the proof of correctness doesn't get any simpler.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-06 20:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-02-03 19:44 [PATCH v2] audit: Avoid excessive dput/dget in audit_context setup and reset paths Waiman Long
2026-02-03 19:59 ` Al Viro
2026-02-03 20:18 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-03 20:05 ` Al Viro
2026-02-03 20:32 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-03 21:50 ` Al Viro
2026-02-03 23:26 ` Al Viro
2026-02-04 4:21 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-04 6:26 ` Al Viro
2026-02-04 18:16 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-04 20:18 ` Al Viro
2026-02-05 3:03 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-05 4:45 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-05 23:53 ` Al Viro
2026-02-06 1:20 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-06 4:11 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-06 4:19 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-06 5:22 ` Al Viro
2026-02-06 6:31 ` Al Viro
2026-02-06 6:38 ` Al Viro
2026-02-06 7:13 ` Al Viro
2026-02-06 19:16 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-06 20:04 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-06 20:38 ` Al Viro
2026-02-07 8:25 ` [PATCH][RFC] bug in unshare(2) failure recovery Al Viro
2026-02-07 23:06 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-17 12:49 ` Christian Brauner
2026-02-17 12:49 ` Christian Brauner
2026-02-06 20:29 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-02-06 20:58 ` setns(2) vs. pivot_root(2) (was Re: [PATCH v2] audit: Avoid excessive dput/dget in audit_context setup and reset paths) Al Viro
2026-02-06 21:09 ` Al Viro
2026-02-17 13:12 ` Christian Brauner
2026-02-06 8:15 ` [PATCH v2] audit: Avoid excessive dput/dget in audit_context setup and reset paths Al Viro
2026-02-05 5:22 ` Al Viro
2026-02-05 13:59 ` Waiman Long
2026-02-05 17:53 ` Mateusz Guzik
2026-02-17 13:33 ` Christian Brauner
2026-02-17 13:44 ` Mateusz Guzik
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=20260206202933.GA3183987@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=audit@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=eparis@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llong@redhat.com \
--cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
--cc=rgb@redhat.com \
--cc=rrobaina@redhat.com \
/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