Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> First let me thank you for adding both FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE and
> FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE. Unfortunately the implementation is currently
> broken. So this patch gets my:
>
> This is broken in two specific ways.
> ...
> 2) FSCONFIG_CMD_CREATE will succeed even if the superblock already
> exists and it can not use all of the superblock parameters.
>
> This happens because vfs_get_super will only call fill_super
> if the super block is created. Which is reasonable on the face
> of it. But it in practice this introduces security problems.
>
> a) Either through reconfiguring a shared super block you did not
> realize was shared (as we saw with devpts).
>
> b) Mounting a super block and not honoring it's mount options
> because something has already mounted it. As we see today
> with proc. Leaving userspace to think the filesystem will behave
> one way when in fact it behaves another.
>
> I have already explained this several times, and apparently I have been
> ignored. This fundamental usability issue that leads to security
> problems.
I've also explained why you're wrong or at least only partially right. I *do*
*not* want to implement sget() in userspace with the ability for userspace to
lock out other mount requests - which is what it appears that you've been
asking for.
However, as I have said, I *am* willing to add one of more flags to help with
this, but I can't make any "legacy" fs honour them as this requires the
fs_context to be passed down to sget_fc() and the filesystem - which is why I
was considering leaving it for later.
(1) An FSOPEN_EXCL flag to tell sget_fc() to fail if the superblock already
exists at all.
(2) An FSOPEN_FAIL_ON_MISMATCH flag to explicitly say that we *don't* want a
superblock with different parameters.
The implication of providing neither flag is that we are happy to accept a
superblock from the same source but with different parameters.
But it doesn't seem to be an absolute imperative to roll this out immediately,
since what I have exactly mirrors what the kernel currently does - and forcing
a change in that behaviour risks breaking userspace. If it keeps you happy,
however, I can try and work one up.
David
