Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Upon a cursory examinination the uid and gid of a fuse request are
>> necessary for correct operation. Failing a fuse request where those
>> values are not reliable seems a straight forward and reliable means of
>> ensuring that fuse requests with bad data are not sent or processed.
>>
>> In most cases the vfs will avoid actions it suspects will cause
>> an inode write back of an inode with an invalid uid or gid. But that does
>> not map precisely to what fuse is doing, so test for this and solve
>> this at the fuse level as well.
>>
>> Performing this work in fuse_req_init_context is cheap as the code is
>> already performing the translation here and only needs to check the
>> result of the translation to see if things are not representable in
>> a form the fuse server can handle.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/fuse/dev.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> index 0fb58f364fa6..216db3f51a31 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> @@ -112,11 +112,13 @@ static void __fuse_put_request(struct fuse_req *req)
>> refcount_dec(&req->count);
>> }
>>
>> -static void fuse_req_init_context(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
>> +static bool fuse_req_init_context(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
>> {
>> - req->in.h.uid = from_kuid_munged(&init_user_ns, current_fsuid());
>> - req->in.h.gid = from_kgid_munged(&init_user_ns, current_fsgid());
>> + req->in.h.uid = from_kuid(&init_user_ns, current_fsuid());
>> + req->in.h.gid = from_kgid(&init_user_ns, current_fsgid());
>> req->in.h.pid = pid_nr_ns(task_pid(current), fc->pid_ns);
>> +
>> + return (req->in.h.uid != ((uid_t)-1)) && (req->in.h.gid != ((gid_t)-1));
>> }
>>
>> void fuse_set_initialized(struct fuse_conn *fc)
>> @@ -162,12 +164,13 @@ static struct fuse_req *__fuse_get_req(struct fuse_conn *fc, unsigned npages,
>> wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
>> goto out;
>> }
>> -
>> - fuse_req_init_context(fc, req);
>> __set_bit(FR_WAITING, &req->flags);
>> if (for_background)
>> __set_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
>> -
>> + if (unlikely(!fuse_req_init_context(fc, req))) {
>> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOVERFLOW);
>> + }
>> return req;
>>
>> out:
>> @@ -256,9 +259,12 @@ struct fuse_req *fuse_get_req_nofail_nopages(struct fuse_conn *fc,
>> if (!req)
>> req = get_reserved_req(fc, file);
>>
>> - fuse_req_init_context(fc, req);
>> __set_bit(FR_WAITING, &req->flags);
>> __clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
>> + if (unlikely(!fuse_req_init_context(fc, req))) {
>> + fuse_put_request(fc, req);
>> + return ERR_PTR(-EOVERFLOW);
>> + }
>
> I think failing the "_nofail" variant is the wrong thing to do. This
> is called to allocate a FLUSH request on close() and in readdirplus to
> allocate a FORGET request. Failing the latter results in refcount
> leak in userspace. Failing the former results in missing unlock on
> close() of posix locks.
Doh! You are quite correct.
Modifying fuse_get_req_nofail_nopages to fail is a bug.
I am thinking the proper solution is to write:
static void fuse_req_init_context_nofail(struct fuse_req *req)
{
req->in.h.uid = 0;
req->in.h.gid = 0;
req->in.h.pid = 0;
}
And use that in the nofail case. As it appears neither flush nor
the eviction of inodes is a user space triggered action and as such
user space identifiers are nonsense in those cases.
I will respin this patch shortly.
Eric
