On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:55 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 11:00:22PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 9:57 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On May 22, 2019 8:29:37 PM GMT+02:00, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 7:32 PM Christian Brauner > > > ><christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> This removes two redundant capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) checks from > > > >> fanotify_init(). > > > >> fanotify_init() guards the whole syscall with capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) > > > >at the > > > >> beginning. So the other two capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) checks are not > > > >needed. > > > > > > > >It's intentional: > > > > > > > >commit e7099d8a5a34d2876908a9fab4952dabdcfc5909 > > > >Author: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > >Date: Thu Oct 28 17:21:57 2010 -0400 > > > > > > > > fanotify: limit the number of marks in a single fanotify group > > > > > > > >There is currently no limit on the number of marks a given fanotify > > > >group > > > >can have. Since fanotify is gated on CAP_SYS_ADMIN this was not seen > > > >as > > > >a serious DoS threat. This patch implements a default of 8192, the > > > >same as > > > >inotify to work towards removing the CAP_SYS_ADMIN gating and > > > >eliminating > > > > the default DoS'able status. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > >There idea is to eventually remove the gated CAP_SYS_ADMIN. > > > >There is no reason that fanotify could not be used by unprivileged > > > >users > > > >to setup inotify style watch on an inode or directories children, see: > > > >https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10668299/ > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Fixes: 5dd03f55fd2 ("fanotify: allow userspace to override max queue > > > >depth") > > > >> Fixes: ac7e22dcfaf ("fanotify: allow userspace to override max > > > >marks") > > > > > > > >Fixes is used to tag bug fixes for stable. > > > >There is no bug. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > >Amir. > > > > > > Interesting. When do you think the gate can be removed? > > > > Nobody is working on this AFAIK. > > What I posted was a simple POC, but I have no use case for this. > > In the patchwork link above, Jan has listed the prerequisites for > > removing the gate. > > > > One of the prerequisites is FAN_REPORT_FID, which is now merged. > > When events gets reported with fid instead of fd, unprivileged user > > (hopefully) cannot use fid for privilege escalation. > > > > > I was looking into switching from inotify to fanotify but since it's not usable from > > > non-initial userns it's a no-no > > > since we support nested workloads. > > > > One of Jan's questions was what is the benefit of using inotify-compatible > > fanotify vs. using inotify. > > So what was the reason you were looking into switching from inotify to fanotify? > > Is it because of mount/filesystem watch? Because making those available for > > Yeah. Well, I would need to look but you could probably do it safely for > filesystems mountable in user namespaces (which are few). > Can you do a bind-mount and then place a watch on the bind-mount or is > this superblock based? > Either. FAN_MARK_MOUNT was there from day 1 of fanotify. FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM was merged to Linux Linux 4.20. But directory modification events that are supported since v5.1 are not available with FAN_MARK_MOUNT, see: https://github.com/amir73il/man-pages/blob/fanotify_fid/man2/fanotify_init.2#L97 Matthew, Perhaps this fact is worth a mention in the linked entry for FAN_REPORT_FID in fanotify_init.2 in addition to the comment on the entry for FAN_MARK_MOUNT in fanotify_mark.2. Thanks, Amir.
