On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 09:25:08AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:38:46AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:17:36AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 5:05 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > > > > Adding fsdevel so we're aware of this quirk. > > > > > > > > > > So I'm not sure whether this was ever discussed on fsdevel when you took > > > > > the decision to treat fd 0 as AT_FDCWD or in general treat fd 0 as an > > > > > invalid value. > > > > > > > > I've never heard of this before, and I think it is compltely > > > > unacceptable. 0 ist just a normal FD, although one that happens to > > > > have specific meaning in userspace as stdin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it was discussed then great but if not then I would like to make it > > > > > very clear that if in the future you decide to introduce custom > > > > > semantics for vfs provided infrastructure - especially when exposed to > > > > > userspace - that you please Cc us. > > > > > > > > I don't think it's just the future. We really need to undo this ASAP. > > > > > > Christian is not correct in stating that treatment of fd==0 as invalid > > > bpf object applies to vfs fd-s. > > > The path_fd addition in this patch is really the very first one of this kind. > > > At the same time bpf anon fd-s (progs, maps, links, btfs) with fd == 0 > > > are invalid and this is not going to change. It's been uapi for a long time. > > > > > > More so fd-s 0,1,2 are not "normal FDs". > > > Unix has made two mistakes: > > > 1. fd==0 being valid fd > > > 2. establishing convention that fd-s 0,1,2 are stdin, stdout, stderr. > > > > > > The first mistake makes it hard to pass FD without an extra flag. > > > The 2nd mistake is just awful. > > > We've seen plenty of severe datacenter wide issues because some > > > library or piece of software assumes stdin/out/err. > > > Various services have been hurt badly by this "convention". > > > In libbpf we added ensure_good_fd() to make sure none of bpf objects > > > (progs, maps, etc) are ever seen with fd=0,1,2. > > > Other pieces of datacenter software enforce the same. > > > > > > In other words fds=0,1,2 are taken. They must not be anything but > > > stdin/out/err or gutted to /dev/null. > > > Otherwise expect horrible bugs and multi day debugging. > > > > > > Because of that, several years ago, we've decided to fix unix mistake #1 > > > when it comes to bpf objects and started reserving fd=0 as invalid. > > > This patch is proposing to do the same for path_fd (normal vfs fd) when > > > > It isn't as you now realized but I'm glad we cleared that up off-list. > > > > > it is passed to bpf syscall. I think it's a good trade-off and fits > > > the rest of bpf uapi. > > > > > > Everyone who's hiding behind statements: but POSIX is a standard.. > > > or this is how we've been doing things... are ignoring the practical > > > situation at hand. fd-s 0,1,2 are taken. Make sure your sw never produces them. > > > > (Prefix: Imagine me calmly writing this and in a relaxed tone.) > > > > Just to clarify. I do think that deciding that 0 is an invalid file descriptor > > We're still talking past each other. > 0 is an invalid bpf object. Not file. > There is a difference. You cut of a word above. I can't follow your argument. File descriptor numbers are free to refer to whatever we want. They don't care about what type of object they refer to and they better not. > The kernel is breaking user space by returning non-file FDs in 0,1,2. > Especially as fd = 1 and 2. This has a strong aura of a strawman argument. ;) > ensure_good_fd() in libbpf is a library workaround to make sure bpf objects > are not the reason for user app brekage. > I firmly believe that making kernel return socket FDs and other special FDs with fd >=3 > (under new sysctl, for example) will prevent user space breakage. > > And to answer Ted's question.. > Yes. It's a security issue, but it's the other way around. > The kernel returning non vfs file FD in [0,1,2] range is a security issue. > I'm proposing to fix it with new sysctl or boot flag. That's just completely weird. We can see what Linus thinks but I think that's a somewhat outlandish proposal that I wouldn't support.
