On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 05:12:21PM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 15:26 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:28:22PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 02:18:17PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:51:03PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > > > While trying to track down some NFS problems with BTRFS, I kept noticing I was
> > > > > getting -EACCESS for no apparent reason. Eric Paris and printk() helped me
> > > > > figure out that it was SELinux that was giving me grief, with the following
> > > > > denial
> > > > >
> > > > > type=AVC msg=audit(1290013638.413:95): avc: denied { 0x800000 } for pid=1772
> > > > > comm="nfsd" name="" dev=sda1 ino=256 scontext=system_u:system_r:kernel_t:s0
> > > > > tcontext=system_u:object_r:unlabeled_t:s0 tclass=file
> > > > >
> > > > > Turns out this is because in d_obtain_alias if we can't find an alias we create
> > > > > one and do all the normal instantiation stuff, but we don't do the
> > > > > security_d_instantiate. With this patch I'm no longer seeing these errant
> > > > > -EACCESS return values. Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Possibly dumb question: Is there still a small race here? Is it
> > > > possible for another nfsd thread to find the new alias on the list while
> > > > this thread is still:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/dcache.c | 1 +
> > > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
> > > > > index 23702a9..890a59e 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/dcache.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/dcache.c
> > > > > @@ -1201,6 +1201,7 @@ struct dentry *d_obtain_alias(struct inode *inode)
> > > > > spin_unlock(&tmp->d_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > spin_unlock(&dcache_lock);
> > > >
> > > > ... right here, so that that other nfsd thread still ends up trying to
> > > > do something with a dentry that hasn't had security_d_instantiate called
> > > > on it yet?
> > > >
> > > > > + security_d_instantiate(tmp, inode);
> > > > > return tmp;
> > > > >
> > > > > out_iput:
> > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Or does something else prevent that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's a good question, I have no idea actually. Every other consumer of
> > > security_d_instantiate seems to hold the i_mutex of the parent directory inode,
> > > tho I'm not sure if that is appropriate for d_obtain_alias, maybe somebody else
> > > has an idea? Thanks,
> >
> > Actually, I don't get it:
> >
> > - Why is selinux using a *dentry* operation to initialize an
> > *inode*?
> > - Are security hooks necessarily prepared to handle a
> > disconnected dentry? (Which has no real parent, name an empty
> > string, etc.)
> > - What use is the dentry to the security module in this case
> > anyway?
>
> I only know a bit from the SELinux world and can't speak at all for any
> other LSMs. SELinux however needs the dentry when an inode first enters
> core for a couple of reasons. (once the inode is in core it should have
> already been initialized and we skip all this)
>
> If you have persistent xattr support we need the dentry since the xattr
> code requires a dentry. I have no idea why but that's what
> inode->i_op->getxattr() requires.
>
> Then we come to procfs. In that filesystem we actually label based on
> the pathname. oh no did I say SELinux uses pathnames? yes, I did, but
> we only use the part of the pathname relative to the procfs root, so
> really it's a static identifier which is immutable.
>
> From what I can see SELinux doesn't really care about the dentry, we
> don't care about IS_ROOT() or the name or any of that crap (in the
> non-procfs case). All we really about is that if something can find an
> inode and use it that security_d_instantiate() was called....
>
> Calling security_d_instantiate() extra times is very low overhead and
> not harmful. the dirtiest (but easiest I guess) fix would be to add it
> into the out_iput path as well. I feel like there has to be an easier
> solution, I'm just not sure what it is...
>
So we're not worried about calling it multiple times, we're more worried about
somebody finding the dentry before we have a chance to run
security_d_instantiate. Would it be ok to call security_d_instantiate() right
before we do all the actual instantiation work? That would solve this problem.
Thanks,
Josef
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
