On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 01:13:37PM -0400, dalias@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 07:02:53PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 06:28:53PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jul 27 2023, David Laight wrote:
From: Aleksa Sarai
Sent: 25 July 2023 17:36
...
We almost certainly want to support AT_EMPTY_PATH at the same time.
Otherwise userspace will still need to go through /proc when trying to
chmod a file handle they have.
That can't be allowed.
IIUC, fchmodat2(fd, "", m, AT_EMPTY_PATH) is equivalent to fchmod(fd,
m). With that, new architectures only need to implement the fchmodat2
syscall to cover all chmod variants.
There's a difference though as fchmod() doesn't work with O_PATH file
descriptors while AT_EMPTY_PATH does. Similar to how fchown() doesn't
work with O_PATH file descriptors.
However, we do allow AT_EMPTY_PATH with fchownat() so there's no reason
to not allow it for fchmodat2().
But it's a bit of a shame that O_PATH looks less and less like O_PATH.
It came from can-do-barely-anything to can-do-quite-a-lot-of-things over
the years.
In any case, AT_EMPTY_PATH for fchmodat2() can be an additional patch on
top.
From a standpoint of implementing O_SEARCH/O_EXEC using it, I don't
see any reason fchown/fchmod should not work on O_PATH file
descriptors. And indeed when you have procfs available to emulate them
via procfs, it already does. So I don't see this as unwanted
I'm really not talking about the fact that proc is a giant loophole for
basically everyhing related to O_PATH and reopening fds.
I'm saying that both fchmod() and fchown() don't work on O_PATH fds.
They explicitly reject them.
AT_EMPTY_PATH and therefore O_PATH for fchmodat2() is fine given that we
do it for fchownat() already.
