On 13/10/2018 07:11, Al Viro wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:49:50PM +0100, Alan Jenkins wrote:
+SYSCALL_DEFINE3(fspick, int, dfd, const char __user *, path, unsigned int, flags)
+{
+ struct fs_context *fc;
+ struct path target;
+ unsigned int lookup_flags;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!ns_capable(current->nsproxy->mnt_ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
This seems to accept basically any mount. Specifically: are you sure it's
OK to return a handle to a SB_NO_USER superblock?
Umm... As long as we don't try to do pathname resolution from its ->s_root,
shouldn't be a problem and I don't see anything that would do that. I might've
missed something, but...
Sorry, I guess SB_NOUSER was the wrong word. I was trying find if
anything stopped things like
int memfd = memfd_create("foo", 0);
int fsfd = fspick(memfd, "", FSPICK_EMPTY_PATH);
fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_FLAG, "ro", NULL, 0);
fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "size", "100M", 0);
fsconfig(fsfd, FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE, NULL, NULL, 0);
So far I'm getting -EBUSY if I try to apply the "ro", -EINVAL if I try
to apply the "size=100M". But if I don't apply either, then
FSCONFIG_CMD_RECONFIGURE succeeds.
It seems worrying that it might let me set options on shm_mnt. Or at
least letting me get as far as the -EBUSY check for the "ro" superblock
flag.
I'm not sure why I'm getting the -EINVAL setting the "size" option. But
it would be much more reassuring if I was getting -EPERM :-).
Alan
