On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 06:12:29PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 3:48 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 03:28:52PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 2:57 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 05:31:39PM +0200, Christian Göttsche wrote: > > > > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > Support file descriptors obtained via O_PATH for extended attribute > > > > > operations. > > > > > > > > > > Extended attributes are for example used by SELinux for the security > > > > > context of file objects. To avoid time-of-check-time-of-use issues while > > > > > setting those contexts it is advisable to pin the file in question and > > > > > operate on a file descriptor instead of the path name. This can be > > > > > emulated in userspace via /proc/self/fd/NN [1] but requires a procfs, > > > > > which might not be mounted e.g. inside of chroots, see[2]. > > > > > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/commit/7e979b56fd2cee28f647376a7233d2ac2d12ca50 > > > > > [2]: https://github.com/SELinuxProject/selinux/commit/de285252a1801397306032e070793889c9466845 > > > > > > > > > > Original patch by Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-fsdevel/patch/20200505095915.11275-6-mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > > > > While this carries a minute risk of someone relying on the property of > > > > > > xattr syscalls rejecting O_PATH descriptors, it saves the trouble of > > > > > > introducing another set of syscalls. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only file->f_path and file->f_inode are accessed in these functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Current versions return EBADF, hence easy to detect the presense of > > > > > > this feature and fall back in case it's missing. > > > > > > > > > > CC: linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > CC: linux-man@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Göttsche <cgzones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > I'd be somewhat fine with getxattr and listxattr but I'm worried that > > > > setxattr/removexattr waters down O_PATH semantics even more. I don't > > > > want O_PATH fds to be useable for operations which are semantically > > > > equivalent to a write. > > > > > > It is not really semantically equivalent to a write if it works on a > > > O_RDONLY fd already. > > > > The fact that it works on a O_RDONLY fd has always been weird. And is > > probably a bug. If you look at xattr_permission() you can see that it > > Bug or no bug, this is the UAPI. It is not fixable anymore. > > > checks for MAY_WRITE for set operations... setxattr() writes to disk for > > real filesystems. I don't know how much closer to a write this can get. > > > > In general, one semantic aberration doesn't justify piling another one > > on top. > > > > (And one thing that speaks for O_RDONLY is at least that it actually > > opens the file wheres O_PATH doesn't.) > > Ok. I care mostly about consistent UAPI, so if you want to set the > rule that modify f*() operations are not allowed to use O_PATH fd, > I can live with that, although fcntl(2) may be breaking that rule, but > fine by me. > It's good to have consistent rules and it's good to add a new UAPI for > new behavior. > > However... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In sensitive environments such as service management/container runtimes > > > > we often send O_PATH fds around precisely because it is restricted what > > > > they can be used for. I'd prefer to not to plug at this string. > > > > > > But unless I am mistaken, path_setxattr() and syscall_fsetxattr() > > > are almost identical w.r.t permission checks and everything else. > > > > > > So this change introduces nothing new that a user in said environment > > > cannot already accomplish with setxattr(). > > > > > > Besides, as the commit message said, doing setxattr() on an O_PATH > > > fd is already possible with setxattr("/proc/self/$fd"), so whatever security > > > hole you are trying to prevent is already wide open. > > > > That is very much a something that we're trying to restrict for this > > exact reason and is one of the main motivator for upgrade mask in > > openat2(). If I want to send a O_PATH around I want it to not be > > upgradable. Aleksa is working on upgrade masks with openat2() (see [1] > > and part of the original patchset in [2]. O_PATH semantics don't need to > > become weird. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220526130355.fo6gzbst455fxywy@senku > > [2]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20190728010207.9781-8-cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx > > ... thinking forward, if this patch is going to be rejected, the patch that > will follow is *xattrat() syscalls. > > What will you be able to argue then? > > There are several *at() syscalls that modify metadata. > fchownat(.., AT_EMPTY_PATH) is intentionally designed for this. > > Do you intend to try and block setxattrat()? > Just try and block setxattrat(.., AT_EMPTY_PATH)? > those *at() syscalls have real use cases to avoid TOCTOU races. > Do you propose that applications will have to use fsetxattr() on an open > file to avert races? > > I completely understand the idea behind upgrade masks > for limiting f_mode, but I don't know if trying to retroactively > change semantics of setxattr() in the move to setxattrat() > is going to be a good idea. > > And forgive me if I am failing to see the big picture. > It is certainly a possibility. The big picture is that we should not water down O_PATH to the point where it can be used for almost any operation. Just looking at your point about fchown*(), the open(2) manpage still notes: "Obtain a file descriptor that can be used for two purposes: to indicate a location in the filesystem tree and to perform operations that act purely at the file descriptor level. The file itself is not opened, and other file operations (e.g., read(2), write(2), fchmod(2), fchown(2), fgetxattr(2), ioctl(2), mmap(2)) fail with the error EBADF." so it explicitly mentions that *fch{own,mod}*() operations __and fgetxattr()__ should fail and in fact that any non-fd level operations should fail... Yet we are watering that contract down to the point where the distinction between an O_PATH fd and a regular fd becomes more and more meaningless That's a point completely separate from upgrade masks; which are there to make O_PATH fds more meaningful.
