On 5/18/20 4:41 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
>>> However, in this syzbot test case the 'file' is in an overlayfs filesystem
>>> created as follows:
>>>
>>> mkdir("./file0", 000) = 0
>>> mount(NULL, "./file0", "hugetlbfs", MS_MANDLOCK|MS_POSIXACL, NULL) = 0
>>> chdir("./file0") = 0
>>> mkdir("./file1", 000) = 0
>>> mkdir("./bus", 000) = 0
>>> mkdir("./file0", 000) = 0
>>> mount("\177ELF\2\1\1", "./bus", "overlay", 0, "lowerdir=./bus,workdir=./file1,u"...) = 0
>
> Is there any actual valid use case for mounting an overlayfs on top of hugetlbfs? I can't think of one. Why isn't the response to this to instead only allow mounting overlayfs on top of basically a set of whitelisted filesystems?
>
I can not think of a use case. I'll let Miklos comment on adding whitelist
capability to overlayfs.
IMO - This BUG/report revealed two issues. First is the BUG by mmap'ing
a hugetlbfs file on overlayfs. The other is that core mmap code will skip
any filesystem specific get_unmapped area routine if on a union/overlay.
My patch fixes both, but if we go with a whitelist approach and don't allow
hugetlbfs I think we still need to address the filesystem specific
get_unmapped area issue. That is easy enough to do by adding a routine to
overlayfs which calls the routine for the underlying fs.
--
Mike Kravetz
