On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:18:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 04-07-23 11:58:07, Christian Brauner wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Sat 01-07-23 19:25:14, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 10:29 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 07:20:44AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > Hopefully, nobody is trying to abuse mount/sb marks for watching all > > > > > > anonymous pipes/inodes. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot think of a good reason to allow this - it looks like an > > > > > > oversight that dated back to the original fanotify API. > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20230628101132.kvchg544mczxv2pm@quack3/ > > > > > > Fixes: d54f4fba889b ("fanotify: add API to attach/detach super block mark") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > Jan, > > > > > > > > > > > > As discussed, allowing sb/mount mark on anonymous pipes > > > > > > makes no sense and we should not allow it. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've noted FAN_MARK_FILESYSTEM as the Fixes commit as a trigger to > > > > > > backport to maintained LTS kernels event though this dates back to day one > > > > > > with FAN_MARK_MOUNT. Not sure if we should keep the Fixes tag or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason this is an RFC and that I have not included also the > > > > > > optimization patch is because we may want to consider banning kernel > > > > > > internal inodes from fanotify and/or inotify altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > The tricky point in banning anonymous pipes from inotify, which > > > > > > could have existing users (?), but maybe not, so maybe this is > > > > > > something that we need to try out. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we can easily get away with banning anonymous pipes from > > > > > > fanotify altogeter, but I would not like to get to into a situation > > > > > > where new applications will be written to rely on inotify for > > > > > > functionaly that fanotify is never going to have. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Am I over thinking this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Amir. > > > > > > > > > > > > fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > > > > > index 95d7d8790bc3..8240a3fdbef0 100644 > > > > > > --- a/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > > > > > +++ b/fs/notify/fanotify/fanotify_user.c > > > > > > @@ -1622,6 +1622,20 @@ static int fanotify_events_supported(struct fsnotify_group *group, > > > > > > path->mnt->mnt_sb->s_type->fs_flags & FS_DISALLOW_NOTIFY_PERM) > > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * mount and sb marks are not allowed on kernel internal pseudo fs, > > > > > > + * like pipe_mnt, because that would subscribe to events on all the > > > > > > + * anonynous pipes in the system. > > > > > > > > > > s/anonynous/anonymous/ > > > > > > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * XXX: SB_NOUSER covers all of the internal pseudo fs whose objects > > > > > > + * are not exposed to user's mount namespace, but there are other > > > > > > + * SB_KERNMOUNT fs, like nsfs, debugfs, for which the value of > > > > > > + * allowing sb and mount mark is questionable. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + if (mark_type != FAN_MARK_INODE && > > > > > > + path->mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & SB_NOUSER) > > > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > > On second thought, I am not sure about the EINVAL error code here. > > > > I used the same error code that Jan used for permission events on > > > > proc fs, but the problem is that applications do not have a decent way > > > > to differentiate between > > > > "sb mark not supported by kernel" (i.e. < v4.20) vs. > > > > "sb mark not supported by fs" (the case above) > > > > > > > > same for permission events: > > > > "kernel compiled without FANOTIFY_ACCESS_PERMISSIONS" vs. > > > > "permission events not supported by fs" (procfs) > > > > > > > > I have looked for other syscalls that react to SB_NOUSER and I've > > > > found that mount also returns EINVAL. > > > > > > We tend to return EINVAL both for invalid (combination of) flags as well as > > > for flags applied to invalid objects in various calls. In practice there is > > > rarely a difference. > > > > > > > So far, fanotify_mark() and fanotify_init() mostly return EINVAL > > > > for invalid flag combinations (also across the two syscalls), > > > > but not because of the type of object being marked, except for > > > > the special case of procfs and permission events. > > > > > > > > mount(2) syscall OTOH, has many documented EINVAL cases > > > > due to the type of source object (e.g. propagation type shared). > > > > > > > > I know there is no standard and EINVAL can mean many > > > > different things in syscalls, but I thought that maybe EACCES > > > > would convey more accurately the message: > > > > "The sb/mount of this fs is not accessible for placing a mark". > > > > > > > > WDYT? worth changing? > > > > worth changing procfs also? > > > > We don't have that EINVAL for procfs documented in man page btw. > > > > > > Well, EACCES translates to message "Permission denied" which as Christian > > > writes is justifiable but frankly I find it more confusing. Because when I > > > get "Permission denied", I go looking which permissions are wrong, perhaps > > > suspecting SELinux or other LSM and don't think that object type / location > > > is at fault. > > > > > > I agree that with EINVAL it is impossible to distinguish "unsupported on > > > this object only" vs "completely unknown flag" but it doesn't seem like a > > > huge problem for userspace to me as I can think of workarounds even if > > > userspace wants to do something else than "report error and bail". > > > > Userspace is pretty used to the flood of EINVAL from the vfs apis so > > they often have good workarounds. It doesn't mean it's something we > > should just discount ofc. I think having ways to surface more > > descriptive errors would overall be a good thing. > > Oh, I absolutely agree with that. I'm just not sure whether returning > EACCES in this particular case is going to cause more or less confusion. Yeah, I really meant it as a generic comment that also applies to my own comment about EINVAL being ubiquitous; so not directed at your comment about EACCES specifically.
