On Wed 24-02-21 14:58:31, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 12:52 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue 23-02-21 19:16:40, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 6:16 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:12 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 7:01 PM Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun 24-01-21 20:42:04, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > > Add limited support for unprivileged fanotify event listener. > > > > > > > An unprivileged event listener does not get an open file descriptor in > > > > > > > the event nor the process pid of another process. An unprivileged event > > > > > > > listener cannot request permission events, cannot set mount/filesystem > > > > > > > marks and cannot request unlimited queue/marks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This enables the limited functionality similar to inotify when watching a > > > > > > > set of files and directories for OPEN/ACCESS/MODIFY/CLOSE events, without > > > > > > > requiring SYS_CAP_ADMIN privileges. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The FAN_REPORT_DFID_NAME init flag, provide a method for an unprivileged > > > > > > > event listener watching a set of directories (with FAN_EVENT_ON_CHILD) > > > > > > > to monitor all changes inside those directories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This typically requires that the listener keeps a map of watched directory > > > > > > > fid to dirfd (O_PATH), where fid is obtained with name_to_handle_at() > > > > > > > before starting to watch for changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When getting an event, the reported fid of the parent should be resolved > > > > > > > to dirfd and fstatsat(2) with dirfd and name should be used to query the > > > > > > > state of the filesystem entry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that even though events do not report the event creator pid, > > > > > > > fanotify does not merge similar events on the same object that were > > > > > > > generated by different processes. This is aligned with exiting behavior > > > > > > > when generating processes are outside of the listener pidns (which > > > > > > > results in reporting 0 pid to listener). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > The patch looks mostly good to me. Just two questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > a) Remind me please, why did we decide pid isn't safe to report to > > > > > > unpriviledged listeners? > > > > > > > > > > Just because the information that process X modified file Y is not an > > > > > information that user can generally obtain without extra capabilities(?) > > > > > I can add a flag FAN_REPORT_OWN_PID to make that behavior > > > > > explicit and then we can relax reporting pids later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > FYI a patch for flag FAN_REPORT_SELF_PID is pushed to branch > > > > fanotify_unpriv. > > > > > > > > The UAPI feels a bit awkward with this flag, but that is the easiest way > > > > to start without worrying about disclosing pids. > > > > > > > > I guess we can require that unprivileged listener has pid 1 in its own > > > > pid ns. The outcome is similar to FAN_REPORT_SELF_PID, except > > > > it can also get pids of its children which is probably fine. > > > > > > > > > > Jan, > > > > > > WRT your comment in github: > > > "So maybe we can just require that this flag is already set by userspace > > > instead of silently setting it? Like: > > > > > > if (!(flags & FAN_REPORT_SELF_PID)) return -EPERM; > > > > > > I'd say that variant is more futureproof and the difference for user > > > is minimal." > > > > > > I started with this approach and then I wrote the tests and imagined > > > the man page > > > requiring this flag would be a bit awkward, so I changed it to auto-enable. > > > > > > I am not strongly against the more implicit flag requirement, but in > > > favor of the > > > auto-enable approach I would like to argue that with current fanotify you CAN > > > get zero pid in event, so think about it this way: > > > If a listener is started in (or moved into) its own pid ns, it will > > > get zero pid in all > > > events (other than those generated by itself and its own children). > > > > > > With the proposed change, the same applies also if the listener is started > > > without CAP_SYS_ADMIN. > > > > > > As a matter of fact, we do not need the flag at all, we can determine whether > > > or not to report pid according to capabilities of the event reader at > > > event read time. > > > And we can check for one of: > > > - CAP_SYS_ADMIN > > > - CAP_SYS_PACCT > > > - CAP_SYS_PTRACE > > > > > > Do you prefer this flag-less approach? > > > > Well, I don't have strong opinion what we should do internally either. The > > flag seems OK to me. The biggest question is whether we should expose the > > FAN_REPORT_SELF_PID flag to userspace or not. If we would not require > > explicit flag for unpriv users, I see little reason to expose that flag at > > all. > > > > IMO the only listeners that actually care about event->pid are permission > event listeners. I think that FAN_CLASS_NOTIF listeners do not care > about it. The only thing that *I* ever used event->pid for is to ignore events > from self pid. > > My question is, do you mind if we start with this code: > > @@ -419,6 +419,14 @@ static ssize_t copy_event_to_user(struct > fsnotify_group *group, > metadata.reserved = 0; > metadata.mask = event->mask & FANOTIFY_OUTGOING_EVENTS; > metadata.pid = pid_vnr(event->pid); > + > + /* > + * For an unprivileged listener, event->pid can be used to identify the > + * events generated by the listener process itself, without disclosing > + * the pids of other processes. > + */ > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) && > + task_tgid(current) != event->pid) > + metadata.pid = 0; > > No need for any visible or invisible user flags. OK, I think this is fine. > If users ask for event->pid of other processes later (I don't think they will) > and we decide that it is safe to disclose them, we will require another flag > and then the test will become: > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) || > + FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_REPORT_PID)) > > and *if* that ever happens, we will document the FAN_REPORT_PID > flag and say that it is enabled by default for CAP_SYS_ADMIN instead of > requiring and documenting FAN_REPORT_SELF_PID now. > > The way I see it, the only disadvantage with this negated approach is > that CAP_SYS_ADMIN listeners cannot turn off event->pid reporting, > but why would anybody need to do that? Yeah, let's leave complications for later when someone asks for it :) Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
