"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): >> ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes: >> >> > "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > >> >> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): >> >>> >> >>> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> >> >>> > diff --git a/fs/xattr.c b/fs/xattr.c >> >>> > index 7e3317c..75cc65a 100644 >> >>> > --- a/fs/xattr.c >> >>> > +++ b/fs/xattr.c >> >>> > @@ -170,12 +170,29 @@ int __vfs_setxattr_noperm(struct dentry *dentry, const char *name, >> >>> > const void *value, size_t size, int flags) >> >>> > { >> >>> > struct inode *inode = dentry->d_inode; >> >>> > - int error = -EAGAIN; >> >>> > + int error; >> >>> > + void *wvalue = NULL; >> >>> > + size_t wsize = 0; >> >>> > int issec = !strncmp(name, XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX, >> >>> > XATTR_SECURITY_PREFIX_LEN); >> >>> > >> >>> > - if (issec) >> >>> > + if (issec) { >> >>> > inode->i_flags &= ~S_NOSEC; >> >>> > + >> >>> > + if (!strcmp(name, "security.capability")) { >> >>> > + error = cap_setxattr_convert_nscap(dentry, value, size, >> >>> > + &wvalue, &wsize); >> >>> > + if (error < 0) >> >>> > + return error; >> >>> > + if (wvalue) { >> >>> > + value = wvalue; >> >>> > + size = wsize; >> >>> > + } >> >>> > + } >> >>> > + } >> >>> > + >> >>> > + error = -EAGAIN; >> >>> > + >> >>> >> >>> Why is the conversion in __vfs_setxattr_noperm and not in setattr as >> >>> was done for posix_acl_fix_xattr_from_user? >> >> >> >> I think I was thinking I wanted to catch all the vfs_setxattr operations, >> >> but I don't think that's right. Moving to setxattr seems right. I'll >> >> look around a bit more. >> > >> > Thanks. This is one of these little details that we want a good answer >> > to why there. If you can document that in your patch description when >> > you resend I would appreciate it. >> >> Ok. Grrr. >> >> Looking at this a little more getting it correct where we call the >> conversion operation is critical. >> >> I believe the current placement of cap_setxattr_convert_nscap is >> actively wrong. In particular unless I am misleading something this >> will trigger multiple conversions when setting one of these attributes >> on overlayfs. >> >> The stragey I adopted for for posix acls is: >> >> On a write from userspace convert from current_user_ns() to &init_user_ns. >> On a write to the filesystem convert from &init_user_ns to fs_user_ns. >> >> On a read from the filesystem convert from fs_user_ns to &init_user_ns >> On a read from the kernel to userspace convert from &init_user_ns >> to current_user_ns(). >> >> Overall a good strategy but no one we can trivially adopt for the >> capability xattr as the second write to filesystem method does not >> appear to actually exist for anything except for posix acls. >> >> I need to think a little more about how we want to accomplish this for >> the capability xattr. My apoligies for leading you down a path that has >> all of these bumps and then being sufficiently distracted not to help >> you through this maze. >> >> The only easy solution I can see is to just always keep things in >> &init_user_ns inside the kernel. That works until we bring fuse or >> other unprivileged mounts onboard that have storage outside of the >> kernel. >> >> Seth and I will have to rework that for fuse support but that sounds >> better than not letting such an issue prevent us from merging the code. > > Ok, in the meantime I've made a few updates in my tree which I think > make the code a lot nicer (and do move the conversion to setxattr()), > but there's a bug in that which I'm still trying to nail down. I'll > send a new version when I get that figured, and we can see how close > to ok that is. > > Note that upstream cap_inode_removexattr and cap_inode_setxattr() > upstream still don't respect the fs_user_ns properly either (the > proper code is in the Ubuntu kernel, maybe it's in your -next > tree, I don't know how you and Seth are coordinating that) Oh yes. The relaxation of permissions. I remember holding off on that until we knew the core vfs work was done. At this point I don't think it is necessary to keep holding off. It seemed prudent before we got all of the s_user_ns bits used in all of the proper places. At this point I think it was just worry about the last little vfs bits has been challenging enough that we just haven't gotten too it. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html