On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That doesn't help because we explicitly reject O_RDONLY when combined
>> with O_TMPFILE.
>
> I think I'm missing something. How is an O_RDONLY temporary file
> useful? Wouldn't you want an O_RDWR tempfile with mode 0400 or
> something like that?
Isn't it because they are essentially emulating an atomic open()
capable of creating a file with inherited ACLs, according to
relatively complex rules? open *can* be used with O_CREAT|O_RDONLY
(touch(1) might do that), which would naively translate into:
fd = open(dir, O_TMPFILE|O_RDONLY, 0600)
fsetxattr(fd, "...")
fsetxattr(fd, "...")
linkat(AT_FDCWD, "/proc/self/fd/...", ..., AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW)
return fd;
Now this would be happening on the server, and the only reason why it
would be important to ensure that fd is O_RDONLY, is that smbd does
not do its own bookkeeping of how each file handle was opened, and
would rather have the kernel enforce O_RDONLY?
With O_TMPFILE as implemented now, smbd would have to do open(dir,
O_TMPFILE|O_RDWR, 0600), but internally keep track that O_RDONLY was
requested by the client on that fd, and block any writes to fd itself.
--
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
