On 2022-05-17 08:37, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:22 PM Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This patch adds 2 structure members to the response returned from user > > space on a permission event. The first field is 32 bits for the context > > type. The context type will describe what the meaning is of the second > > field. The default is none. The patch defines one additional context > > type which means that the second field is a union containing a 32-bit > > rule number. This will allow for the creation of other context types in > > the future if other users of the API identify different needs. The > > second field size is defined by the context type and can be used to pass > > along the data described by the context. > > > > To support this, there is a macro for user space to check that the data > > being sent is valid. Of course, without this check, anything that > > overflows the bit field will trigger an EINVAL based on the use of > > FAN_INVALID_RESPONSE_MASK in process_access_response(). > > > > Suggested-by: Steve Grubb <sgrubb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/2745105.e9J7NaK4W3@x2 > > Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201001101219.GE17860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c | 2 +- > > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h | 2 + > > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 74 +++++++++++++++++++----------- > > include/linux/fanotify.h | 3 ++ > > include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h | 22 ++++++++- > > 5 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c > > index 985e995d2a39..ea0e60488f12 100644 > > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c > > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.c > > @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ static int fanotify_get_response(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > } > > > > /* userspace responded, convert to something usable */ > > - switch (event->response & ~FAN_AUDIT) { > > + switch (event->response & ~(FAN_AUDIT | FAN_EXTRA)) { > > case FAN_ALLOW: > > ret = 0; > > break; > > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h > > index d66668e06bee..eb7ec1f2a26e 100644 > > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h > > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify.h > > @@ -426,8 +426,10 @@ struct fanotify_perm_event { > > struct fanotify_event fae; > > struct path path; > > u32 response; /* userspace answer to the event */ > > + u32 extra_info_type; > > unsigned short state; /* state of the event */ > > int fd; /* fd we passed to userspace for this event */ > > + union fanotify_response_extra extra_info; > > }; > > > > static inline struct fanotify_perm_event * > > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > index 721e777ea90b..1c4067e29f2e 100644 > > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > @@ -289,13 +289,22 @@ static int create_fd(struct fsnotify_group *group, struct path *path, > > */ > > static void finish_permission_event(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > struct fanotify_perm_event *event, > > - u32 response) > > + struct fanotify_response *response) > > __releases(&group->notification_lock) > > { > > bool destroy = false; > > > > assert_spin_locked(&group->notification_lock); > > - event->response = response; > > + event->response = response->response & ~FAN_EXTRA; > > + if (response->response & FAN_EXTRA) { > > + event->extra_info_type = response->extra_info_type; > > + switch (event->extra_info_type) { > > + case FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE: > > + event->extra_info.audit_rule = response->extra_info.audit_rule; > > + } > > + } else { > > + event->extra_info_type = FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE; > > + } > > if (event->state == FAN_EVENT_CANCELED) > > destroy = true; > > else > > @@ -306,33 +315,40 @@ static void finish_permission_event(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > } > > > > static int process_access_response(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > - struct fanotify_response *response_struct) > > + struct fanotify_response *response_struct, > > + size_t count) > > { > > struct fanotify_perm_event *event; > > int fd = response_struct->fd; > > u32 response = response_struct->response; > > > > - pr_debug("%s: group=%p fd=%d response=%u\n", __func__, group, > > - fd, response); > > + pr_debug("%s: group=%p fd=%d response=%u type=%u size=%lu\n", __func__, > > + group, fd, response, response_struct->extra_info_type, count); > > + if (fd < 0) > > + return -EINVAL; > > /* > > * make sure the response is valid, if invalid we do nothing and either > > * userspace can send a valid response or we will clean it up after the > > * timeout > > */ > > - switch (response & ~FAN_AUDIT) { > > - case FAN_ALLOW: > > - case FAN_DENY: > > - break; > > - default: > > - return -EINVAL; > > - } > > - > > - if (fd < 0) > > + if (FAN_INVALID_RESPONSE_MASK(response)) > > That is a logic change, because now the response value of 0 becomes valid. > > Since you did not document this change in the commit message I assume this was > non intentional? It was not intentional. In hindsight, I should have restored the original code, or at least looked at the original much more carefully to duplicate its behaviour. > However, this behavior change is something that I did ask for, but it should be > done is a separate commit: > > /* These are NOT bitwise flags. Both bits can be used together. */ > #define FAN_TEST 0x00 > #define FAN_ALLOW 0x01 > #define FAN_DENY 0x02 > #define FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_ACCESS \ > (FAN_TEST|FAN_ALLOW | FAN_DENY) > > ... > int access = response & FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_ACCESS; > > 1. Do return EINVAL for access == 0 Going back to the original code will do that. > 2. Let all the rest of the EINVAL checks run (including extra type) > 3. Move if (fd < 0) to last check > 4. Add if (!access) return 0 before if (fd < 0) > > That will provide a mechanism for userspace to probe the > kernel support for extra types in general and specific types > that it may respond with. I'm still resisting the idea of the TEST flag... It seems like an unneeded extra step and complication... The simple presence of the FAN_EXTRA flag should sort it out and could even make TEST one of the types. > > return -EINVAL; > > - > > if ((response & FAN_AUDIT) && !FAN_GROUP_FLAG(group, FAN_ENABLE_AUDIT)) > > return -EINVAL; > > - > > + if (response & FAN_EXTRA) { > > + if (count < offsetofend(struct fanotify_response, extra_info_type)) > > + return -EINVAL; > > + switch (response_struct->extra_info_type) { > > + case FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE: > > + break; > > + case FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE: > > + if (count < offsetofend(struct fanotify_response, extra_info)) > > That's a trap right there. > In future kernel, if someone adds a 64bit member to the extra_info union > existing binaries will start failing. In hindsight, agreed. It should have aimed for the end of "__u32 audit_rule" for FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE. > Also since struct fanotify_response is not packed, a 64bit member in the > union will change the alignment of extra_info union. > The use of a union in UAPI seems to be asking for trouble. I'll have to take your word for it. > You should probably follow the pattern of fanotify_event_info_* structs. > It's more work, but I don't see another way. I was thinking this would be fine until it was expanded and could be separated then, but the issue above demonstrates that is false. > > + return -EINVAL; > > + break; > > + default: > > + return -EINVAL; > > + } > > + } > > spin_lock(&group->notification_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(event, &group->fanotify_data.access_list, > > fae.fse.list) { > > @@ -340,7 +356,7 @@ static int process_access_response(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > continue; > > > > list_del_init(&event->fae.fse.list); > > - finish_permission_event(group, event, response); > > + finish_permission_event(group, event, response_struct); > > wake_up(&group->fanotify_data.access_waitq); > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -802,9 +818,13 @@ static ssize_t fanotify_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, > > fsnotify_destroy_event(group, &event->fse); > > } else { > > if (ret <= 0) { > > + struct fanotify_response response = { > > + .fd = FAN_NOFD, > > + .response = FAN_DENY }; > > + > > spin_lock(&group->notification_lock); > > finish_permission_event(group, > > - FANOTIFY_PERM(event), FAN_DENY); > > + FANOTIFY_PERM(event), &response); > > wake_up(&group->fanotify_data.access_waitq); > > } else { > > spin_lock(&group->notification_lock); > > @@ -827,26 +847,25 @@ static ssize_t fanotify_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, > > > > static ssize_t fanotify_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, size_t count, loff_t *pos) > > { > > - struct fanotify_response response = { .fd = -1, .response = -1 }; > > + struct fanotify_response response; > > struct fsnotify_group *group; > > int ret; > > + size_t size = min(count, sizeof(struct fanotify_response)); > > > > if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > group = file->private_data; > > > > - if (count < sizeof(response)) > > + if (count < offsetofend(struct fanotify_response, response)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > - count = sizeof(response); > > - > > pr_debug("%s: group=%p count=%zu\n", __func__, group, count); > > > > - if (copy_from_user(&response, buf, count)) > > + if (copy_from_user(&response, buf, size)) > > return -EFAULT; > > > > - ret = process_access_response(group, &response); > > + ret = process_access_response(group, &response, count); > > We did not copy count bytes of response. We copied size bytes. This was intentional as a safeguard to not overflow the struct, but also not take garbage from userspace. If it is an old userspace, the padding is blank and meaningless. If userspace sends more, it won't trample beyond the struct. The types involved would take care of that later. > > if (ret < 0) > > count = ret; > > > > @@ -857,6 +876,9 @@ static int fanotify_release(struct inode *ignored, struct file *file) > > { > > struct fsnotify_group *group = file->private_data; > > struct fsnotify_event *fsn_event; > > + struct fanotify_response response = { > > + .fd = FAN_NOFD, > > + .response = FAN_ALLOW }; > > > > /* > > * Stop new events from arriving in the notification queue. since > > @@ -876,7 +898,7 @@ static int fanotify_release(struct inode *ignored, struct file *file) > > event = list_first_entry(&group->fanotify_data.access_list, > > struct fanotify_perm_event, fae.fse.list); > > list_del_init(&event->fae.fse.list); > > - finish_permission_event(group, event, FAN_ALLOW); > > + finish_permission_event(group, event, &response); > > spin_lock(&group->notification_lock); > > } > > > > @@ -893,7 +915,7 @@ static int fanotify_release(struct inode *ignored, struct file *file) > > fsnotify_destroy_event(group, fsn_event); > > } else { > > finish_permission_event(group, FANOTIFY_PERM(event), > > - FAN_ALLOW); > > + &response); > > } > > spin_lock(&group->notification_lock); > > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/fanotify.h b/include/linux/fanotify.h > > index 419cadcd7ff5..63a8494e782e 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/fanotify.h > > +++ b/include/linux/fanotify.h > > @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ > > #define ALL_FANOTIFY_EVENT_BITS (FANOTIFY_OUTGOING_EVENTS | \ > > FANOTIFY_EVENT_FLAGS) > > > > +/* This mask is to check for invalid bits of a user space permission response */ > > +#define FAN_INVALID_RESPONSE_MASK(x) ((x) & ~(FAN_ALLOW | FAN_DENY | FAN_AUDIT | FAN_EXTRA)) > > + > > Please drop this macro and follow the pattern of FANOTIFY_{INIT,MARK,EVENT}_* > > #define FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_ACCESS \ > (FAN_ALLOW | FAN_DENY) > #define FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_FLAGS \ > (FAN_AUDIT | FAN_EXTRA) > #define FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_VALID_MASK \ > (FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_ACCESS | \ > FANOTIFY_RESPONSE_FLAGS) This seems like a reasonable approach. > > /* Do not use these old uapi constants internally */ > > #undef FAN_ALL_CLASS_BITS > > #undef FAN_ALL_INIT_FLAGS > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h b/include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h > > index e8ac38cc2fd6..a94f4143601f 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fanotify.h > > @@ -179,15 +179,35 @@ struct fanotify_event_info_error { > > __u32 error_count; > > }; > > > > +/* > > + * User space may need to record additional information about its decision. > > + * The extra information type records what kind of information is included. > > + * The default is none. We also define an extra informaion buffer whose > > typo: informaion Thanks. > > + * size is determined by the extra information type. > > + * > > + * If the context type is Rule, then the context following is the rule number > > + * that triggered the user space decision. > > + */ > > + > > +#define FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_NONE 0 > > +#define FAN_RESPONSE_INFO_AUDIT_RULE 1 > > + > > +union fanotify_response_extra { > > + __u32 audit_rule; > > +}; > > + > > struct fanotify_response { > > __s32 fd; > > __u32 response; > > + __u32 extra_info_type; > > + union fanotify_response_extra extra_info; > > IIRC, Jan wanted this to be a variable size record with info_type and info_len. Again, the intent was to make it fixed for now and change it later if needed, but that was a shortsighted approach... I don't see a need for a len in all response types. _NONE doesn't need any. _AUDIT_RULE is known to be 32 bits. Other types can define their size and layout as needed, including a len field if it is needed. > I don't know if we want to make this flexible enough to allow for multiple > records in the future like we do in events, but the common wisdom of > the universe says that if we don't do it, we will need it. It did occur to me that this could be used for other than audit, hence the renaming of the ..."_NONE" macro. We should be able in the future to define a type that is extensible or has multiple records. We have (2^32) - 2 types left to work with. > Thanks, > Amir. - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
