My patch is below:
/fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c
nfsd_acceptable(void expv,struct dentry *dentry)
{
- if(exp->ex_flags & NFSEXP_NOSUBTREEXHECK)
- return 1;
+ if(is_root_export(exp))
+ return 1;
+ /* If not subdirectory export, accept anything*/
}
在 2021年1月19日星期二，bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道：
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:29:28AM +0800, 吴异 wrote:
>> I want to consult you on what is the original intention of designing
>> subtree_check and whether it is to solve the 'I want to export a
>> subtree of a filesystem' problem.
>>
>> As far as I know, when opening subtree_check, the folder's file
>> handle does not contain the inode information of its parent directory
>> and
>> 'while (tdentry != exp->ex_path.dentry && !IS_ROOT(tdentry))' in
>> nfsd_acceptable can work well to Intercept handles beyond the export
>> point.
>>
>> This seems to delete code as follows in nfsfh.c could solve the 'I
>> want to export a subtree of a filesystem' problem and ensure safety:
>> if (exp->ex_flags & NFSEXP_NOSUBTREECHECK)
>> return 1;
>>
>> Or replace by follow:
>> if (exp->ex_path.dentry == exp->vfs_mount->mnt_root)
>> return 1;
>>
>> When I was reading the nfsd code, I was confused about whether the
>> designer used the file system as a security boundary or an export
>> point.Since exporting a complete file system is the safest, why not
>> directly prohibit unsafe practices, but add code like subtree_check to
>> try to verify the file handle.
>
> Sorry, I honestly don't understand the question.
>
> If you have a specific proposal, perhaps you could send a patch.
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> I may not understand your design ideas.
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 于2021年1月13日周三 上午12:53写道：
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2021-01-12 at 10:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:48:00PM +0800, 吴异 wrote:
>> > > > Telling users how to configure the exported file system in the most
>> > > > secure
>> > > > way does
>> > > > mitigate the problem to some extent, but this does not seem to
>> > > > address the
>> > > > security risks posed by no_ subtree_ check in the code. In my
>> > > > opinion,when
>> > > > the generated filehandle does not contain the inode information of
>> > > > the
>> > > > parent directory,the nfsd_acceptable function can also recursively
>> > > > determine whether the request file exceeds the export path
>> > > > dentry.Enabling
>> > > > subtree_check to add parent directory information only brings some
>> > > > troubles.
>> > >
>> > > Filesystems don't necessarily provide us with an efficient way to
>> > > find
>> > > parent directories from any given file. (And note a single file may
>> > > have multiple parent directories.)
>> > >
>> > > (I do wonder if we could do better in the directory case, though. We
>> > > already reconnect directories all the way back up to the root.)
>> > >
>> > > > I have a bold idea, why not directly remove the file handle
>> > > > modification in
>> > > > subtree_check, and then normalize the judgment of whether dentry
>> > > > exceeds
>> > > > the export point directory in nfsd_acceptable (line 38 to 54 in
>> > > > /fs/nfsd/nfsfh.c) .
>> > > >
>> > > > As far as I understand it, the reason why subtree_check is not
>> > > > turned on by
>> > > > default is that it will cause problems when reading and writing
>> > > > files,
>> > > > rather than it wastes more time when nfsd_acceptable.
>> > > >
>> > > > In short,I think it's open to question whether the security of the
>> > > > system
>> > > > depends on the user's complete correct configuration(the system
>> > > > does not
>> > > > prohibit the export of a subdirectory).
>> > >
>> > > > Enabling subtree_check to add parent directoryinformation only
>> > > > brings
>> > > > some troubles.
>> > > >
>> > > > In short,I think it's open to question whether the security of the
>> > > > system depends on the user's complete correct configuration(the
>> > > > system
>> > > > does not prohibit the export of a subdirectory).
>> > >
>> > > I'd love to replace the export interface by one that prohibited
>> > > subdirectory exports (or at least made it more obvious where they're
>> > > being used.)
>> > >
>> > > But given the interface we already have, that would be a disruptive
>> > > and
>> > > time-consuming change.
>> > >
>> > > Another approach is to add more entropy to filehandles so they're
>> > > harder
>> > > to guess; see e.g.:
>> > >
>> > > https://www.fsl.cs.stonybrook.edu/docs/nfscrack-tr/index.html
>> > >
>> > > In the end none of these change the fact that a filehandle has an
>> > > infinite lifetime, so once it's leaked, there's nothing you can do.
>> > > The
>> > > authors suggest NFSv4 volatile filehandles as a solution to that
>> > > problem, but I don't think they've thought through the obstacles to
>> > > making volatile filehandles work.
>> > >
>> > > --b.
>> >
>> > The point is that there is no good solution to the 'I want to export a
>> > subtree of a filesystem' problem, and so it is plainly wrong to try to
>> > make a default of those solutions, which break the one sane case of
>> > exporting the whole filesystem.
>> >
>> > Just a reminder that we kicked out subtree_check not only because a
>> > trivial rename of a file breaks the client's ability to perform I/O by
>> > invalidating the filehandle. In addition, that option causes filehandle
>> > aliasing (i.e. multiple filehandles pointing to the same file) which is
>> > a major PITA for clients to try to manage for more or less the same
>> > reason that it is a major PITA to try to manage these files using
>> > paths.
>> >
>> > The discussion on volatile filehandles in RFC5661 does try to address
>> > some of the above issues, but ends up concluding that you need to
>> > introduce POSIX-incompatible restrictions, such as trying to ban
>> > renames and deletions of open files in order to make it work.
>> >
>> > None of these compromises are necessary if you export a whole
>> > filesystem (or a hierarchy of whole filesystems). That's the sane case.
>> > That's the one that people should default to using.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Trond Myklebust
>> > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
>> > trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> >
>
